u 

Zl 


UC-NRLF 


B    M    237    EMS 


UNIVERSITY  OF  PENNSYLVANIA 


WAR  AND  RELIGION 


A  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY 


BY 


RABBI  ELI  MAYER 


PHILADELPHIA,  PA.,  1918 


A  THESIS 

PRESENTED  TO  THE  FACULTY  OF  THE  GRADUATE  SCHOOL  IN 

PARTIAL  FULFILLMENT  OF  THE  REQUIREMENTS  FOR 

THE  DEGREE  OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 


EXCHANGE 


UNIVERSITY  OF  PENNSYLVANIA 


WAR  AND  RELIGION 

A  SOCIOLOGICAL  STUDY 


BT 

RABBI  ELI  MAYER 


PHILADELPHIA,  PA.,  1918 


A  THESIS 

PRESENTED  TO  THE  FACULTY  OF  THE  GRADUATE  SCHOOL  IN 

PARTIAL  FULFILLMENT  OF  THE  REQUIREMENTS  FOR 

THE  DEGREE  OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 


Copyright,  1918 
RABBI  ELI  MAYER 


DEDICATED 

TO 

My  Inspibation,  Mt  Love,  Mt  Wife 
JESSIE  STRAUS 


381334 


Table  of  Contents 

Preface 7 

Introduction 9 

Chapter  I,  "War  and  Religion  in  Theory" 13 

Chapter  II,  "War  and  Religion  in  Fact" 20 

Section  A — War  Among  Remote  Ancestors:    "Men  of  the  Old 

Stone  Age"  and  of  "the  Bronze  and  Iron  Age." 
Section  B — Religion  Among  Remote  Ancestors. 

Part  1 — "  Men  of  the  Old  Stone  Age"  and  of  the  "  Bronze  Age," 
Part  2 — "Contemporaneous  Ancestors." 

A — Introductory  Remarks;  B — Tasmanians;  C — Aus- 
tralian Aborigines;  D — American  Indian;  E — Torres 
Straits;  F — Melanesians;  G — African  Aborigines;  H — 
Todas;  I — Aboriginal  Siberia;  J — South  American 
Aborigines;   K — Summary. 

Chapter  III,  "War  and  Religion  in  Fact."  Period  of  Immediate  Ancestors,  32 
Section  A — Bird's-eye  View  of  War  in  the  First  Part  of  the  Period. 
Section  B — War  and  Religion  Among  the  Most  Ancient  of  Our  Im- 
mediate Ancestors. 

Part  1 — The  Egyptians. 

Part  2 — The  Babylonians  and  Assyrians. 

Part  3 — Zoroastrians. 

Part  4 — Buddhists  of  India. 

Part  5 — Chinese. 

Part  6 — Japanese. 

Part  7 — Greeks. 

Part  8 — Romans. 

Part  9 — Semites. 
Section  C — War  and  Religion  Among  Christian  and  Mohammedan 
Peoples. 

Chapter  IV,  "W^ar  and  Religion  Among  Contemporaries" 60 

Introduction. 

Part  A — Christ.  B — Old  Testament  vs.  New  Testament. 
C — Germany  Christian  or  un-Christian.  D — Religious  Claims 
in  General.  E — Quakers.  F — Tolstoy.  G — Bernhardi.  H — 
Summary. 

Chapter  V,  "Conclusions  from  the  History  of  War  and  Religion"  ...  79 

Bibliography  on  "War  and  Religion" 88 

References  in  the  Text  of  "War  and  Religion" 90 


Preface  to  War  and  Religion 

THIS  prefatory  word  is  to  serve  a  double  purpose.  It  aims  to 
furnish  a  general  background  for  this  work;  and  further,  to 
explain  the  unusual  amount  and  length  of  quotations. 

The  exposition  of  the  background  of  this  work  involves  the  introduc- 
tion of  the  personal  element.  The  writer  is  an  officiating  minister.  He 
was  born  and  raised  in  the  peaceful  American  atmosphere  so  wholly- 
conducive  to  the  idea  that  religion,  above  all  else,  must  mean  a  reasoning 
relationship  among  men  for  the  settlement  of  all  difficulties.  The  isola- 
tion of  the  United  States,  the  traditional  American  sentiment  against 
entangling  alliances,  the  genuine  religious  idealism  pervading  this  land, 
conjured  a  picture  of  internationalism  and  universal  arbitration  that 
eliminated  the  lurid  colors  of  warfare.  The  writer  was  not  unmindful 
of  the  rehgious  doctrine  of  the  "God  of  Battles."  He  was  generally 
aware  of  the  war  gods  of  the  old  national  ploytheisras.  But  for  the 
reasons  given  above,  and  for  others  of  less  importance,  he  felt  that  the 
prophetic  vision  of  "nations  not  learning  war  any  more"  was  most  near 
of  reahzation.  Science  had  made  religion  adjust  itself  to  this  era  of 
evolutionary  thinking.  Religion,  thus  newly  oriented,  could  look  for 
lofty  ranges  of  spirituality  from  science.  Religion  and  science  seemed  to 
have  agreed  that  "God's  in  His  Heaven — all's  right  with  the  world!" 
made  winter's  weary  war-wastes  but  a  passing  phase  to  peaceful  earth's 
eternal  spring.    But  war  stalked  across  the  land.    Where  was  God? 

When  able,  earnest  men  of  God  changed  their  peace  themes  of  yester- 
day to  war  themes  of  today,  the  impossible  seemed  to  have  transpired. 
Of  course  man  cannot  speak  in  absolutes;  but  the  zeal  of  the  ideal 
rehgionist  is  so  proverbial,  that  one  felt  that  the  modern  seer  who  said : 
"Thus  saith  the  Lord  of  Peace"  could  not  readily  shift  to  "Thus  saith 
the  God  of  War."  Conviction  in  religion  is  so  intense  that  it  would  seem 
natural  to  posit  as  religion's  best  watchword:  "One  with  God  is  a 
majority." 

But  when  this  reversal  took  place,  it  occurred  to  the  writer  to  inquire 
whether  this  veering,  so  unlocked  for,  was  an  exception.  Despite  his 
vague  impressions  that  religion  had  been  caught  in  the  net  of  war,  he 
cherished  the  idea  that  it  was  an  unwilling  captive.  He  approached,  there- 
fore, this  subject,  with  a  certain  hope,  if  not  prejudice,  that  he  would 
show  a  nobler  record  for  religion  than  that  made  by  her  living  supporters. 
But  despite  this  bias,  the  evidence  rolled  in,  in  one  steady  stream,  sup- 
porting full  well  the  present-day  attitude  of  all  religionists  in  granting 
their  blessings  to  each  and  ev^ery  country's  cause. 

The  question  then  arose  as  to  the  manner  of  handling  the  mass  of 
evidence  that  was  gathered.  The  easiest  method  would  have  been  to 
give  a  summary  of  a  few  typical  instances,  and  merely  add  the  comment 
that  these  were  characteristic  of  the  relations  of  war  and  religion  every- 
where and  always.  But  the  subject  is  of  such  deep  concern  to  the  world 
at  large,  and  the  idea  is  so  widespread  that  religion  means  peace  and 
only  peace,  that  it  was  feared  such  a  method  would  prove  unfair  to  all 


War  and  Religion 


concerned.  It  would  provoke,  justly,  the  criticism  that  the  author  put 
his  own  interpretation  upon  the  facts  instead  of  letting  the  facts  speak 
for  themselves.  Obviously  it  is  not  the  most  exalted  task  to  string 
together  long  series  of  quotations.  But  it  was  concluded  to  be  the  wisest 
and  most  convincing  method  for  this  first  part  of  the  study  on  war  and 
religion,  dealing  exclusively  with  the  data  of  history. 

This  evidence  is  so  absolutely  consistent  that  it  seems  safe  to  predict 
that  theology  will  be  revolutionized,  at  least  in  the  United  States,  after 
the  war.  Not  that  the  writer  does  not  believe  that  the  God  concept 
must  and  will  survive.  As  long  as  mystery  baffles  man,  so  long  must 
man  assume  an  attitude  towards  it.  But  the  law  which  history  appar- 
ently estabhshes  as  to  the  relations  between  war  and  religion,  cannot  but 
constitute  either  a  challenge  to  religion  to  become  the  primary  factor  in 
life,  or  a  confirmation  of  its  historic  role  of  supporting  the  hands  of  war. 
This  latter  alternative  appears  to  be  the  path  of  least  resistance;  and  if 
the  law  of  inertia  be  applicable  here,  then  religion  will  continue  to  be 
one  of  the  chief  aids  of  war,  as  in  the  past.  If  religion,  however,  takes 
the  leading  strings,  it  can  decree  war  or  peace. 

The  writer  prefers  to  reserve  further  expression  of  opinion  until  the 
close  of  his  studies  on  the  psychological  and  biological  aspects  of  the 
subject.  In  the  meantime,  he  looks  for  sound  and  thorough  criticism 
of  his  theses;  but  he  trusts  that  all  may  find  his  effort  filled  with  the 
spirit  of  fairness,  honesty  and  reverence  for  all  faith  which  he  holds 
most  dear.  Eli  Mater. 


Introduction 

This  study  of  "War  and  Religion"  is  planned  wholly  along  the  lines 
of  Sociology.  This  means  that  the  following  pages  do  not  contain  any 
plea,  whatsoever,  either  against  war  and  for  religion,  or  for  war  and 
against  religion.  As  a  sociological  study,  it  aims  to  presents  first  of  all, 
authoritative  data  throwing  light  on  the  mutual  relationship  between 
war  and  religion ;  and  after  assembling  the  material  in  a  manner  approxi- 
mating as  closely  as  possible  to  scientific  standards,  to  draw  the  plain, 
inevitable  conclusions  which  the  statements  of  history,  human  thinking 
and  research  must  lead  to.  In  brief,  the  canons  of  science  and  not  the 
arts  of  rhetoric  and  appeal  will  be  sedulously  followed,  however  much 
the  subject  may  lend  itself  to,  or  seem  to  demand,  the  hortative  and  the 
emotional. 

The  subject  of  the  investigation  naturally  suggests  both  the  lines  of 
research  and  the  result  that  will  be  obtained.  While  the  biological  and 
psychological  are  as  fundamental  to  social  science  and  theory  as  the 
historical,  it  became  quickly  apparent  that  a  preliminary  consideration 
of  "War  and  Religion"  must  be  narrowed  more  or  less  to  the  historical. 
And  even  in  this  field  the  ground  to  be  covered  seems  so  interminable, 
that  one  finds  himself  grateful  for  the  concession  of  science,  in  its  valida- 
tion of  evidence  on  the  basis  of  a  fair  sample.  For  a  study  of  war  involves 
the  vast  ranges  of  all  human  history;  and  delving  into  recesses  of  religion 
means  an  effort  almost  parallel  to  the  course  of  man  as  a  fighter.  This 
much  then  the  title  surely  conveys  that  a  resume  will  be  given  of  the 
record  of  man  pugnacious  and  man  religious. 

May  it  be  presumed  that  the  name  given  to  this  essay  makes  equally 
clear  the  truths  that  are  expected  to  be  established?  "War  and  Religion" 
by  the  very  juxtaposition  of  the  words  themselves,  gives  more  than  a 
hint  that  there  is  an  essential  connection  between  these  two  terms.  And 
this  is  the  first  conclusion  that  may  be  drawn  from  the  evidence  to  be 
submitted.  Further  proof  may  be  aflForded  readily  to  show,  that  the 
dependence  of  war  on  religion  and  vice  versa  is  not  only  essential,  but 
also  thoroughgoing,  thus  furnishing  ample  warrant  for  binding  these 
pages  under  the  title  selected.  And  finally,  the  chronicles  of  humanity 
seem  to  aflBrm,  that  in  this  relationship  between  war  and  religion,  the 
latter  is  the  secondary  factor,  war  being  the  primary  and  for  that  reason 
it  is  placed  first  in  the  caption. 

But  this  skeleton  outline  of  the  territory  to  be  covered  and  the  goal 
to  be  reached  gives  little  hint  of  the  delimitations  of  the  subject  matter 
and  of  the  method  of  procedure.  Here  the  first  real  diflSculties  are 
encountered  partly,  because  the  sciences  of  Sociology  and  the  History 
of  Religions  are  so  comparatively  new,  and  partly  because  diligent  search 
has  failed  to  reveal  among  the  many  titles  that  express  or  point  to  a 
treatment  of  war  and  religion,  any  that  approach  the  theme,  wholly 
or  in  part,  from  the  scientific  viewpoint  alone.  Two  small  books  were 
found  that  may  be  regarded  as  corollaries  of  the  main  theorem: — "LES 
ENSEIGNES — Cultes  Militaires  De  Rome,"  by  Charles  Renel  (Lyon  et 


War  and  Religion 


Paris  1903);  and  "Die  Religion  Des  Romisches  Heeres,"  by  Alfred 
von  Domaszewski  (Trier  1895).  But  the  greatest  number  of  volumes 
are  briefs  taking  sides;  they  are  of  the  domain  of  theological  apologetics 
or  theories  of  war  and  its  governance.  One,  therefore,  has  to  grope  after 
a  method  in  handling  the  unwieldy  material,  and  offer  it  as  a  tentative 
one  for  the  working  out  of  the  problem.  But  the  present  undeveloped  state 
of  the  sciences  mostly  involved  is  a  great  source  for  bewilderment, 
because  nomenclature  is  so  scanty  and  dubious;  and,  most  troublesome 
of  all,  definitions  are  almost  as  cumbersome  as  they  are  varied  and 
numerous.  Perhaps  it  is  best  to  get  the  less  of  the  two  obstacles  out  of 
the  way  first. 

As  the  great  body  of  literature  that  had  to  be  gone  through  loomed 
continually  larger,  it  became  apparent  that  a  complete  survey  of  it  all 
would  necessitate  useless  and  wearisome  repetition.  An  effort  was 
therefore  made  to  confine  the  attention  to  the  most  important  phases  of 
religion  and  to  the  wars  deemed  most  critical  in  history.  The  first  care  in 
selecting  items  from  the  bibliography  was,  of  course,  directed  to  the 
scientific  value  of  the  author  and  book.  At  the  same  time,  however,  an 
effort  was  made  to  use  such  authorities,  more  particularly,  in  the  realm 
of  religion,  who  combined  the  characteristics  of  the  impartial  searcher 
after  truth  with  a  warm,  sympathetic  interest  in  the  religion  under 
analysis. 

The  easiest  method  of  arranging  the  material  seemed  to  be  the  chrono- 
logical. Justification  for  this  supposition  was  amply  afforded  as  the 
study  progressed.  Accordingly  three  major  divisions  were  plotted.  To 
describe  them,  one  is  beset  with  the  anomalies  that  the  nomenclature  of 
a  developing  science  presents.  For  the  present,  therefore,  the  three  great 
periods  will  be  called  vaguely,  first  that  of  remote  ancestors;  the  next 
that  of  immediate  ancestors;  and  finally,  that  of  contemporaries.  In 
each  of  these  epochs  human  behavior  will  be  studied  in  its  fairly  typical 
reactions  to  war  and  religion. 

This  much  may  suflSce  for  the  way  in  which  the  facts  will  be  marshalled, 
deferring  detailed  remarks  till  the  unfoldment  process  itself  is  begun.  But 
a  somewhat  longer  delay  must  be  submitted  to  in  discussing  definitions. 

What  has  been  stated  to  be  the  primary  factor,  war,  may  be  defined 
very  readily.  The  language  of  any  up-to-date  dictionary  may  be  quoted 
first.  The  Standard  Dictionary  (New  York  1910)  goes  to  the  following 
length:  "War,  .  .  .A  contest,  as  between  nations  or  states,  or  between 
different  parties  in  the  same  state,  carried  on  by  force  and  with  arms, 
commonly  either  for  defense,  for  avenging  insults  and  redressing  wrongs, 
for  the  extension  of  commerce  and  acquisition  of  territory,  or  to  obtain 
and  establish  the  superiority  and  dominion  of  one  of  the  belligerents  over 
the  other;  also  the  condition  of  things  created  by  such  a  contest."  Then 
follows  an  equally  lengthy  note  amplifying  the  preceding  statement. 
These  ideas  may  show  the  limits  of  the  war  concept  as  interpreted  by 
modernity,  but  warfare  is  an  institution  that  antedates  vastly  both  states 
and  nations.  More  scientific  therefore  appear  to  be  the  terms  in  which 
Bertrand  Russell  equates  war  when  he  says':  "War  is  a  conflict  be- 
tween two  groups,  each  of  which  attempts  to  kill  and  maim  as  many 
as  possible  of  the  other  group  in  order  to  achieve  some  object  which  it 

10 


War  and  Religion 


desires.  The  object  is  generally  either  power  or  wealth."  This  definition 
fits  in  better  with  the  bellicosity  of  man  as  he  emerges  into  the  dawn  of 
primeval  history  many  millennia  ago;  and  on  the  basis  of  the  claim  and 
counterclaim  of  present-day  belligerents,  it  measures  in  no  less  apt  terms 
the  meaning  of  war  to  this  latest  of  the  generations. 

Assuming  that  the  idea  "war"  is  now  clear,  the  much  more  difficult 
task  is  encountered  in  attempting  to  define  "religion."  M.  Jastrow,  Jr., 
in  his  "The  Study  of  Religion"  (London  and  New  York  1902)  devotes 
an  entire  chapter  of  forty-four  pages  to  the  topic  of  "The  Character  and 
Definitions  of  Religion."  Further,  R.  R.  Marett,  in  a  more  recent 
publication  frankly  confesses:  "Definitions  of  words  are  always  trouble- 
some; and  Religion  is  the  most  troublesome  of  all  words  to  define"." 

As  it  is  hardly  within  the  scope  of  this  book  to  undertake  a  lengthy 
consideration  of  this  very  moot  topic,  it  is  necessary  not  to  say  desirable 
now  to  reach  some  sort  of  a  definition  of  religion  that  \\all  appear  at  least 
to  embody,  in  however  crude  a  manner,  the  essential  idea  or  ideas  com- 
mon to  the  large  majority  of  opinions  expressed.  Either  a  superficial 
or  intensive  look  into  the  literature  seems  to  reduce  all  thought  and 
speculation  on  religion  to  a  common  denominator  which  may  be  expressed 
by  the  word  "  mystery."  One  is  tempted  here  to  roam  into  psychological 
by-ways  especially  with  Leuba  and  possibly  Marett,  but  again  logical 
sequence  forbids.  To  return  then  to  this  element  of  mystery  posited  as 
a,  if  not  the,  fundament  in  religion,  most  striking  confirmation  of  the 
appeal  of  the  mysterious,  as  the  soul  of  religion,  is  found  in  a  little  volume 
published  ostensibly  to  prove  that  "the  scope  of  religion  in  society  has 
been  declining  all  along  the  ages  from  the  primitive  world  to  ours*." 
Yet  the  lasting  impression  which  the  booklet  leaves  is  the  thought 
of  the  never-dying  power  of  this  sense  in  man  mainly  because  it  is  rooted 
in  mystery.  The  author  may  speak  for  himself  in  the  words*: — "The 
potency  of  the  mysterious  is  the  fundamental  historical  basis  of  religion." 
Continuing  elsewhere,  this  sentiment  is  disclosed^: — "There  are  two 
things  which  make  awe  and  reverence  eternally  possible.  And  they  are 
the  two  which  set  us  going  along  the  whole  path  of  this  evolution,  from 
primitive  man  to  ourselves, life  on  the  one  hand,  and  matteron  theother — 

and  both  are  mysteries These  are  final  mysteries,  and  there  is 

no  fulcrum  in  all  the  universe  to  move  them  from  our  path,  however  we 
strain  on  the  lever."  And  he  sums  up  his  ideas  in  this  conclusion*: — 
"Indeed  since  we  now  see  the  mystery  in  life  itself  which  we  used  to  find 
in  death,  as  long  as  life  endures  the  tremulous  note  of  reverence  will 
sound  across  the  still  clear  spaces  of  the  mind.  But  the  tone  from  that 
eternal  thrill  will  be  moulded,  under  the  control  of  reason,  into  other 
forms  than  that  fantastic,  barbaric  and  discordant  theme  which  has 
held  and  still  so  largely  holds  the  drama  of  our  ancient  myths — and  our 
theologies." 

This  same  note  is  struck,  though  perhaps  not  with  the  same  emphasis, 
by  Leuba  in  his  "Psychological  Origin  of  Religion."  For  present  pur- 
poses it  may  be  sufficient  to  quote  this  sentence  or  two\  "The  necessity 
of  a  Maker  is,  no  doubt,  borne  in  upon  the  savage  at  a  very  early  time, 
not  upon  every  member  of  the  tribe,  but  upon  some  peculiarly  gifted 
individual  who  imparts  to  his  fellows  the  awe-striking  idea  of  a  mysteri- 

11 


War  and  Religion 


ous,  all-powerful  Creator.  The  form  under  which  the  Creator  is  imag- 
ined is,  of  course,  derived  from  the  beings  with  which  his  senses  have 
made  the  savage  familiar."    In  somewhat  similar  vein  runs  the  thought 

of  Toy  who  writes': — " in  the  vegetable  world  and  in  the  life  of 

man  in  which  nature's  productivity  is  easily  recognizable,  life  has  been 
perpetually  unfolding  itself  under  men's  eyes  as  a  mysterious  process, 
which  by  virtue  of  its  mysteriousness,  has  become  religious  material  and 
has  entered  into  systems  of  worship."  Finally  there  should  be  quoted 
Marett's  telling  words': — "I  define  the  object  of  religion  to  be  what- 
ever is  perceived  as  a  mystery  and  treated  accordingly."  On  the  basis, 
therefore,  of  these  and  many  similar  expressions  the  following  definition 
of  religion  is  ventured  more  especially  for  the  purposes  of  this  disserta- 
tion. Religion  is  an  attitude  to  mystery.  This  appears  to  be  inclusive 
enough  to  provide  for  pre-human  manifestations  of  brain  development 
and  also  to  embrace  the  speculations  of  the  most  modem  thinkers  as 
quoted  above. 

From  these  introductory  considerations  concerning  the  title  and  its 
implications,  the  content  and  conclusions  involved,  the  definitions  of 
war  and  religion,  the  way  is  cleared  for  a  review  of  some  basic  theories 
on  man  as  a  battler  and  man  as  struck  by  the  mystery  inherent  in  things. 


12 


/.  War  and  Religion  in  Theory 

It  was  stated  in  the  introductory  observations  that  this  study  was  to 
be  regarded  as  a  preliminary  one,  making  wholly  preponderant  the  his- 
torical element.  While  the  all-important  biological  and  psychological 
foundations  cannot  and  will  not  be  slighted,  it  was  felt  that  it  was  wisest 
to  deal  with  such  highly  developed  social  human  institutions  as  are  war 
and  religion  from  the  standpoint  of  the  abundant  evidence  which  history 
in  its  broadest  lines  affords.  When  the  tale  of  this  age-old  witness  had 
been  impartially  told,  an  accurate  conclusion  could  be  arrived  at;  and 
then  seemed  to  be  the  proper  time  to  marshal  the  discoveries  and 
theories  of  those  special  sciences  that  scrutinize  the  mechanism  of  the 
organisms  and  more  especially  their  mentations.  In  a  word,  it  seemed 
that  history  at  its  best  must  needs  have  a  minimum  of  theory  whereas 
the  disciplines  so  closely  related  to  Sociology  that  deal  with  the  life 
processes  would  appear  to  have  a  maximum  of  hypothesis.  Of  course 
like  most  distinctions,  the  differences  are  more  apparent  than  real;  for 
ultimates  are  eternally  facing  one  and  the  only  anchorages  are  supposi- 
tions. Nevertheless  a  conscious  and  continuous  effort  has  been  made  to 
steer  clear  of  speculation  by  remaining  on  the  broad  expanse,  on  the 
plainly  evident  ocean  of  centuries  of  vouched-for  occurrences  in  the  long 
story  of  human  evolution.  To  get  under  way  then,  this  modicum  of 
attention  to  theories  concerning  war  and  religion  must  preface  the  record. 

This  prefatory  theoretical  section  will  be  extremely  limited  and  narrow 
both  in  order  to  hew  close  to  the  purpose  of  these  pages  and  to  preserve 
as  much  as  possible  unity  of  thought.  Hence  there  will  be  given  no 
heed  to  a  scientific  Euhemerus  in  his  efforts  to  rationalize  religion  nor 
to  such  as  are  of  the  ilk  of  the  Church  Fathers  who  theologize  divinity 
into  statute  and  ordinance.  Nor  again  can  the  ancient  classic  thinkers 
find  a  place  here  with  their  theories  of  war  and  society;  and  the  same 
scant  courtesy  must  be  shown  to  a  Hobbes  and  Malthus  as  to  a  Gum- 
plowicz.  Mainly  to  fit  into  the  spirit  of  what  follows,  this  short  excursus 
into  the  hypothetical  wall  deal  almost  entirely  with  but  a  few  of  the  most 
modern  thinkers,  if  not  of  contemporaries. 

Just  as  the  greater  part  of  all  thinking  on  the  problem  of  religion,  of 
speculation  past  as  well  as  present,  sifts  down  to  the  idea  of  the  attitude 
to  mystery,  so  the  residuum  of  the  greatest  part  of  human  thought 
regarding  the  origin  of  all  human  institutions  and  endeavor  points  to 
society,  to  the  social  complex,  as  the  womb  whence  thoroughly  evolved 
man  derived  his  being.  In  a  word,  these  theories  have  it  that  apart  from 
society  man  would  have  been  and  is  unthinkable. 

To  cite  testimony  there  may  be  quoted  the  fairly  recent  opinion  of 
Marett.  "Psychology"  says  he'  "must  preside  over  the  investiga- 
tions of  Comparative  Religion.  It  remains  to  make  explicit  what  anthro- 
pologists of  the  British  school  have  hitherto  recognized  but  vaguely, 
that  a  Social,  not  an  Individual,  Psychology  can  alone  be  invested  with 
this  function."  And  again,  he  posits  firmly": — "I  hold  that  religion 
in  its  psychological  aspect  is,  fundamentally  a  mode  of  social  behavior." 

1.3 


War  and  Religion 


Practically  in  similar  vein  runs  the  thought  of  Russell  when  he  states^ : — 
"Devotion  to  the  nation  is  perhaps  the  deepest  and  most  widespread 
religion  of  the  present  age.  Like  the  ancient  religions,  it  demands  its 
persecutions,  its  holocausts,  its  lurid  and  heroic  cruelties;  like  them  it  is 
noble,  primitive,  brutal  and  mad." 

This  school  of  sociological  thought  finds,  perhaps,  its  best  exponent 
in  Durkheim,  especially  as  reflected  in  his  "The  Elementary  Forms  of 
the  Religious  Life."  This  work,  from  cover  to  cover,  misses  no  oppor- 
tunity to  insist  that  "religion  is  something  eminently  social*."  Durldieim 
sees  the  power  of  society  in  making  the  furniture  of  the  mind,  as  for 
example  the  categories  of  time  and  space.  While  recognizing  the  indi- 
vidual element  in  man,  it  is  the  social  which  represents  the  highest.  "  In 
so  far  as  he  belongs  to  society,  the  individual  transcends  himself,  both 
when  he  thinks  and  when  he  acts*."  In  his  lengthy  definition  of  reli- 
gion, it  is  the  "eminently  collective"  element  that  he  emphasizes*. 

He  argues  at  great  length'  to  show  that  "totemism  is  tightly  bound  up 
with  the  most  primitive  social  system  which  we  know,  and  in  all  prob- 
ability of  which  we  can  conceive."  It  is  hardly  pertinent  to  digress  here 
for  a  discussion  of  the  claim  to  priority  of  totemism,  or  animism,  magic, 
teratism,  shamanism  or  any  other  form  of  belief  that  has  been  posited  by 
scientists  as  first  in  religious  evolution.  Further,  the  discussion  of  a 
definition  of  religion  in  the  preceding  chapter  obviates  the  necessity  of 
pausing  for  Durkheim's  definition  of  totemism,  unless  it  be  to  note  in 
passing  that  he  seems  to  dwell  here  more  upon  the  mysterious  than  upon 
the  social  factors^.  It  is  valuable  to  mention  that  as  he  strives  to  make 
wholly  clear  the  totemic  principle,  he  touches  briefly  on  a  matter  that  is 
close  to  the  heart  of  this  general  survey  of  the  relations  of  war  and  reli- 
gion. The  totem,  as  the  source  of  the  moral  life  of  the  clan,  binds  the 
members  thereof  together  with  definite  duties  of  assistance,  vendetta, 
etc'  Connecting  the  totemic  principle  with  aboriginal  ideas  of  wakan, 
orenda,  and  mana,  he  concludes  that  "the  idea  of  force  is  of  religious 
origin*"." 

The  socializing  or  integrating  power  of  totemism  centers  in  its  symbol- 
ism". He  develops  this  idea  of  the  symbol  at  great  length  using  the 
analogy  of  the  flags  of  modern  nations  to  make  his  thought  vivid*^.  He 
logically  turns  then  to  a  sort  of  "crowd  psychology"  interpretation  of 
social  evolution*^.  He  clearly  states  that  "it  is  in  the  midst  of  these 
effervescent  social  environments  and  out  of  this  effervescence  itself  that 
the  religious  idea  seems  to  be  born."  The  cause  of  all  these  incitements 
to  the  emotions  is  the  omnipresent  totem  image,  "just  as  the  flag  or 
national  emblem  meets  the  citizen  of  a  state  in  all  places  and  events*^." 

Durkheim  now  reaches  the  core  of  his  interpretation  of  totemism**. 
After  dealing  with  the  phenomena  of  tatooing,  he  traces  the  cause  of 
these  emblematic  images.  He  finds  that  animals  were  naturally  brought 
most  in  contact  with  nations  of  hunters  and  fishers,  because  "the  animal 
constituted  an  essential  element  of  the  economic  environment*'."  He 
then  turns  to  his  original  thesis  in  his  summary  when  he  repeats  that 

"This  conception  of  totemism shows  how  logical  evolution  is 

closely  connected  with  religious  evolution  and  how  it,  like  this  latter, 
depends  upon  social  conditions*^." 

14 


War  and  Religion 


In  this  interpretation  then  of  the  elementary  forms  of  the  religious  life, 
all  emphasis  is  placed  upon  society,  upon  that  integrative  potentiality 
inherent  in  humanity  which  renders  group  life  the  sine  qua  non  of  human 
existence  and  survival.  All  human  institutions  find  their  origin  and 
maintenance  in  the  gregarious  instinct;  and  whatever  has  been  and  is 
must  stand  the  test  of  sociality.  The  lengthy  work  found  room,  only  in 
a  footnote,  for  the  importance  of  the  individual;  and  even  this  brief 
reference  seems  to  have  been  written^^  in  the  spirit  of  showing  how  com- 
pletely subservient  is  the  unit  to  the  whole.  This  thin  piping  note  is 
really  lost  in  the  heavy  swell  by  which  the  main  theme  is  exploited;  for 
practically,  the  closing  words  but  duplicate  the  opening  ones,  when  near 
the  very  end  of  the  volume,  he  says:  "If  religion  has  given  birth  to  all 
that  is  essential  in  society,  it  is  because  the  idea  of  society  is  the  soul  of 
rehgion"." 

Durkheim  gave  practically  no  attention  to  war,  in  this  volume.  But 
if  his  dictum :  "  If  religion  has  given  birth  to  all  that  is  essential  in  society" 
be  taken  on  its  face  value,  his  theory  logically  necessitates  the  corollary 
that  war  is  one  of  these  by-products  of  religion.  For  whatever  has  been 
and  is  in  society  must  be  essential  to  society.  This  is  Durkheim's  own 
reasoning.  He  finds  religion  all  pervasive  in  society,  therefore,  it  is 
essential  to  society.  But  is  it  any  the  less  true  that  warfare  has  been  and 
is  as  surely  a  characteristic  of  society,  and  accordingly  must  have  been 
somewhat  vital  to  the  development  and  continuation  of  society.'*  Grant- 
ing this,  war  must  be  attributed  to  religion.  For  if  religion  has  given 
birth  to  all  that  is  essential  in  society,  and  war  is  such  an  essential,  then 
war  must  be  laid  at  its  door.  This  reverses  the  stand  established  by  this 
study  which  aims  to  show  that  religion  is  secondary  to  war  rather  than 
that  war  is  subsidiary  to  religion.  But  Durkheim's  logic  seems  to  main- 
tain the  first  contention  of  this  work  that  there  is  a  connection  between 
war  and  religion  and  that  this  connection  is  an  essential  one.  And  as  for 
the  position  of  religion  itself,  he  makes  it  secondary  and  altogether  subor- 
dinate to  the  social  instinct  in  man.  The  question  then  that  Durkheim 
leaves  concerns  the  relations  of  war  and  society.  Does  war  necessarily 
work  for  the  ends  of  society,  or  does  society  inevitably  mean  war.  This 
larger  field  has  been  industriously  ploughed,  and  results  will  be  noted 
later.  For  the  present  moment  attention  will  be  restricted  to  the  thoughts 
of  other  authorities  on  the  relations  of  the  social  and  the  religious. 

Leuba  does  not  go  to  the  extremes  of  Durkheim  in  paying  tribute  to 
the  powder  of  society,  but  he  unhesitatingly  asserts  that  traditional  reli- 
gion was  a  "pedagogical  device  in  the  interest  of  social  and  individual 
mo^ality^^"  He  finds  that  the  rejection  of  the  two  fundamental  dogmas 
of  Christianity,  i.  e.,  God  and  immortality,  is  apparently  "destined  to 
extend  parallel  with  the  diffusion  of  knowledge  and  the  moral  qualities 
that  make  for  eminence  in  the  scholarly  pursuits^^."  His  conclusion  is 
that  moral  ideals  and  moral  energy  have  their  source  in  social  life^.  It 
is  most  interesting  here  to  find  his  wholesale  discount  of  religion  in  all 
that  makes  for  heroism  and  self-sacrifice^^.  Most  apropos  of  this  sub- 
ject of  war  and  religion,  is  a  remark,  seemingly  incidental,  which  Leuba 
injects  into  the  closing  part  of  his  work.  He  says:  "In  the  monstrous 
war  we  are  now  witnessing,  is  there  a  less  heroic  defense  of  home  and 

15 


War  and  Religion 


nation,  and  less  conscious  self-renunciation  for  the  sake  of  others  among 
the  non-believers  than  among  the  professed  Christians'^*?" 

Jevons  likewise  endorses  this  social  interpretation  but  with  a  stronger 
accent  on  the  religious  factor.  He  finds  that  the  lack  of  uniformity  in 
nature  is  the  element  provocative  of  the  earliest  glimmer  of  the  light  of 
religion.  Success  in  working  the  mechanism  of  nature  man  took  to  him- 
self; "but  when  the  machinery  did  not  work,  he  ascribed  the  fault  to 
some  overruling,  supernatural  power.  In  fine,  when  the  natural  ended 
the  supernatural  began^^."  "He  must,  therefore,  from  the  beginning 
have  been  brought  to  confront  a  mysterious  power  which  was  beyond 
both  his  calculation  and  his  controF'^."  Jevons  credits  the  origin  of 
Social  Obligation  to  the  taboo  institution^^.  It  is  not  necessary  to  include 
here  his  theory  of  the  rise  of  totemism  through  the  blood  feud  and  super- 
naturalism^^  A  summary  is  aflForded  by  his  own  words:  "  .  .  .from  the 
beginning,  religion  was  not  an  affair  which  concerned  the  individual  only, 
but  one  which  demanded  the  co-operation  of  the  whole  community;  and 
a  religious  community  was  the  earliest  form  of  society*"." 

It  is  difficult,  however,  to  place  one's  finger  on  Jevons.  At  one  point*' 
he  speaks  of  the  development  of  religion  in  terms  akin  to  Spencerian 
organic  evolution.  But  anon,  one  reads,  inter  alia,  ".  as  the  laws  of 
nature  were  in  existence  and  in  operation  long  before  they  were  formu- 
lated by  man,  so  before  the  truth  was  formulated  that  God  is  Love,  His 

love  was  toward  all  His  creatures so  his  heart  responded  with 

love  to  the  divine  love Man,  being  by  nature  religious,  began  by  a 

religious  explanation  of  nature'^." 

These  last  words  quoted  gainsay  the  impression  given  at  the  beginning 
of  the  book  that  it  was  the  unusual,  the  catastrophic,  the  diseases,  the 
blood  feuds  with  man  and  beast,  the  wars,  that  roused  man  to  the  state 
of  being  aware  of  that  mysterious  power  which  was  beyond  both  his  cal- 
culation and  control.  If  this  is  so,  then  it  is  not  unfair  to  bring  Jevons 
to  support  the  assertion  that  there  is  an  essential  connection  between  war 
and  religion.  Whether  Jevons  would  regard  this  connection  as  thorough- 
going is  open  to  question.  That  war,  however,  is  the  primary  factor,  the 
argument  of  Jevons  would  abundantly  establish.  For,  according  to  him, 
it  is  the  cataclysm  which  crashes  the  truths  of  religion  into  man's  mind, 
and  war  is  certainly  of  the  nature  of  the  cataclysmic. 

One  remains  somewhat  uncertain  as  to  Keane's  ideas  on  religion, 
though  he  seems  to  affirm  the  dominating  force  of  society^'.  These 
theories,  however,  on  the  place  of  religion  in  society,  are  best  closed  by 
adverting  briefly  to  Spencer,  more  especially  as  his  words  dovetail  most 
neatly  into  the  second  part  of  this  chapter  dealing  with  theories  of  war. 

The  Spencerian  "Ghost  Theory"  has  it  that  ancestor- worship  is  at  the 
root  of  every  religion'*.  His  analysis  of  social  grouping  on  the  militant 
and  the  industrial  basis'*  brings  him  to  present,  in  a  nutshell,  the  histori- 
cal reaches  of  this  study.  Militant  societies  have  religions  of  a  militant 
character  and  of  enmity'^.  The  ecclesiastical  organization  follows  the 
lines  of  the  political.  "  Generally  where  the  militant  type  is  highly  devel- 
oped, the  political  head  and  the  ecclesiastical  head  are  identical — the 
king,  chief  descendant  of  his  ancestor  who  has  become  a  god,  is  also  chief 
propitiator  of  him'^." 

16 


War  and  Religion 


Spencer  here  gives  a  real  bird's-eye  view  of  the  projected  contents  of 
this  volume.  Along  with  a  similarly  sketchy  reference  in  a  most  recent 
book  by  Brandes  to  be  referred  to  later,  here  is  stated  by  Spencer  the 
nearest  approximation  of  the  goal  to  be  reached  by  this  study.  Spencer 
places  war  as  the  primary  factor.  Religion  is  placed  in  an  essential  and 
secondary  relationship  to  war;  but  the  connections  are  not  thorough- 
going.   Industrialism  will  bring  peace. 

In  passing  now  from  these  theories  concerning  religion  to  those  dealing 
with  war,  Spencer  may  be  referred  to  first  not  only  because  it  conduces 
to  consecutiveness,  but  principally  for  the  reason  that  there  is  hardly  an 
account  to  be  found  anywhere  that  gives  in  clearer  and  more  convincing 
fashion  the  all-potent  role  that  warfare  has  played  in  the  onward  move- 
ment of  the  social  complex. 

Spencer  finds  that  "as  at  first,  so  afterwards,  the  wars  of  societies  with 
one  another  have  all-important  effects  in  developing  social  structures  or 
rather  certain  of  them'^."  It  is  pressure,  and  difficulty  in  evading  that 
pressure,  that  make  for  social  integration^^.  It  is  warfare  between  socie- 
ties that  originates  governmental  structures  and  increases  their  efficiency'"'. 
" .  .  .  .so  the  governmental-military  organization  of  a  society  is  initiated 
by,  and  evolves  along  with,  the  warfare  between  societies''^"  He  traces 
the  influences  of  war  on  the  horde,  and  the  uncivilized.  "In  the  semi- 
civilized  societies  the  conquering  commander  and  the  despotic  king  are 
the  same;  and  they  remain  the  same  in  civilized  societies  down  to  late 
times*2." 

Pitt-Rivers  seems  to  glory  in  conditioning  the  evolution  of  culture  in 
the  past,  present  and  future,  on  war.  The  struggle  for  mastery  is  most 
literally  construed  by  him.  He  places  it  beyond  the  possibility  of  a 
doubt  that  "from  the  remotest  age  in  which  we  find  evidence  of  organized 
beings,  war  has  been  ordained  to  an  important  function  in  the  creative 
process^'."  He  pities  Utopian  peace  dreamers  for  "we  find  no  more  evi- 
dence in  nature  of  a  state  of  society  in  which  wars  shall  cease,  than  we  do 
of  a  state  of  existence  in  which  we  shall  support  life  without  food,  or 
propagate  our  species  by  other  means  than  those  which  nature  has 
appointed**."    One  is  prepared  then  for  his  striking  rhetorical  question: 

"Who  can  doubt that  an  instinct  so  widely  disseminated  and  so 

identical  in  men  and  animals,  must  have  been  ordained  for  special 
objects*^?" 

The  champions,  however,  of  the  idea  that  war  has  played  such  a  deci- 
sive part  in  man's  past  are  legion;  and  they  are  so  redoubtable  that  only 
a  few  more  scattering  references  will  be  included  before  closing  this 
section. 

Strange  as  it  may  appear,  Jevons  must  be  included  in  this  group*';  for 
despite  his  idyllic  picture  of  divine  and  human  love,  his  pages  contain 
more  than  one  statement  to  the  effect  that  "In  the  view  of  early  man, 
war  is  a  holy  function;  before  going  into  battle,  the  sacrifice  is  offered  to 
the  clan-god,  the  warriors  are  consecrated  to  him,  and  are  placed  under 
the  taboos  ordinarily  imposed  on  those  who  are  in  direct  and  special 
communion  with  the  clan-god*^." 

Thomas  throws  a  most  illuminating  side-light  on  this  whole  discussion 
with  his  remarks  on  race  prejudice.    He  closes  his  analysis  of  this  fixed 


War  and  Religion 


and  instinctive  trait  of  the  mind  by  saying  that  "This  is  not  a  laudable 
attitude,  but  it  has  been  valuable  to  the  group,  because  a  bitter  and  con- 
temptuous feeling  is  an  aid  to  good  fighting.  No  race  or  nation  has  yet 
freed  itself  from  this  tendency  to  exalt  and  idealize  itself^*." 

A  slightly  more  idealistic  picture  of  man,  the  jBghter,  is  given  by  Kellogg 
in  his  short  but  intensely  interesting  work:  "Beyond  War."  The  book 
is  all  the  more  valuable  because  it  appeared  a  scant  two  years  before  this 
war  broke  out.  He  finds  that  man's  beginnings,  both  phyletic  and 
ontogenic,  are  dominated  by  instinct,  until  slowly  and  painfully,  reason 
and  control  are  in  the  ascendant,  and  "the  grown  race  looks  back  with 
horror  to  the  brutish  life  of  its  glacial  life  beginnings."*^"  While  there  are 
remnants  of  these  fighting  instincts  still  inhering  in  man  of  today,  the 
dominating  reason  and  soul  of  man  is  deliberately  eliminating  them^". 
As  evolution  made  man  a  fighter,  it  will  also  make  him  a  peaceful  crea- 
ture substituting  reason  and  altruism  for  instinct  and  egoism^'. 

But  Russell  cannot  find  such  roseate  promise  in  the  progressive  use  of 
reason*^.  The  nub  of  the  matter  for  him  is  the  turning  of  the  impulses 
and  passions  into  channels  opposite  to  those  that  lead  to  war.  "Blind 
impulse  is  the  source  of  war,  but  it  is  also  the  source  of  science,  and  art, 
and  love^*."  So  it  is  not  the  weakening  of  the  life  of  impulse  but  the 
directing  of  it  that  is  the  important  thing.  The  crux  of  the  matter  for 
him  is  "That  the  ultimate  fact  from  which  war  results  is  the  fact  that  a 
large  proportion  of  mankind  have  an  impulse  to  conflict  rather  than  har- 
mony, and  can  only  be  brought  to  co-operate  in  resisting  or  attacking  a 
common  enemy^."  Basing  himself  on  this  belief,  he  encompasses  the 
whole  range  of  human  history  in  the  few  words:  "In  spite  of  the  fact 
that  most  nations  at  most  times  are  at  peace,  war  is  one  of  the  most  per- 
manent institutions  of  all  free  communities^^." 

At  this  point,  the  review  of  theories  concerning  war  will  rest.  It  may 
have  seemed  strange  that  so  far  no  word  has  been  written  of  Darwinian 
theory.  It  was  decided  to  postpone  touching  upon  it  until  the  closing 
chapter.  Thus  in  a  most  rapid  and  perhaps  somewhat  arbitrary  fashion 
there  have  been  sketched  some  theories  concerning  war  and  religion.  The 
sum  total  of  the  authorities  consulted  yields  more  than  a  tithe  of  evidence 
to  support  the  original  propositions  of  this  study.  Religion  has  been 
found  to  be  secondary  whether  society  or  war  be  placed  first.  Many 
regard  the  role  of  religion  as  one  devoted  to  the  ends  of  society  or  war. 
The  large  school  of  thinkers,  who  look  upon  society  or  sociality  as  the 
rock-bottom  factor  in  the  evolving  of  the  human  type,  was  represented  by 
Durkheim,  because  his  work  is  a  most  recent  study,  and  he  forges  his 
chain  of  reasoning  with  material  which  he  regards  as  the  earliest  religion 
of  man,  i.  e.,  the  system  of  totemism.  On  the  basis  of  his  statement:  "If 
religion  has  given  birth  to  all  that  is  essential  in  society,  it  is  because 
society  is  the  soul  of  religion;"  there  was  found  ample  ground  to  sustain 
the  claim  that  religion  is  essentially  connected  with  war.  Similar  support 
was  yielded  by  Jevons,  in  his  interpretation  of  the  influence  of  the  super- 
natural. With  a  word  or  two  from  several  other  scholars,  the  argument 
from  religious  theories  was  closed  with  Spencer's  plain  expressions  of  the 
subserviency  of  religion  to  the  social  process;  and  his  equally  unvarnished 
inductions  on  the  functional  importance  of  war  opened  the  second  part 

18 


War  and  Religion 


of  this  chapter.  A  fitting  complement  was  found  in  the  assumptions  of 
Pitt-Rivers,  who,  in  his  "Evolution  of  Culture,"  which  was  issued  in 
1906  with  an  introduction  by  Henry  Balfour,  gives  a  most  frank  confes- 
sion of  faith  in  a  Providence  that  has  created  organic  life  in  such  a  way 
that  it  must  lead  a  warring  existence.  Several  books  were  then  referred 
to  that  were  published  within  the  last  three  or  four  years,  one  of  which 
read  that  the  same  evolution  which  planted  the  pugnacious  instinct  in 
man  would  also  root  it  out.  Finally,  Russell's  theory  that  the  primary 
impulse  to  war  should  be  turned  into  channels,  equally  rousing  and 
passionate,  but  constructive  instead  of  destructive,  closed  this  glance 
into  the  vast  reaches  of  theory  that  men  have  evolved  from  many  cen- 
turies ago  to  the  present  day.  The  "prehistory"  which  was  made  so  dis- 
tinct in  the  sweeping  view  of  Russell  and  Kellogg  serves  the  course  of 
this  study  well  as  it  turns  now  from  theory  to  fact.  The  discussion  of 
"War  and  Religion  in  Fact"  will  begin  with  a  search  of  the  meager 
records  of  the  so-called  men  of  the  Stone  Age,  who  were  the  remote 
ancestors  of  the  men  of  today. 


19 


//.   War  and  Religion  in  Fact 
Section  A — War  Among  Remote  Ancestors 

As  the  knowledge  of  the  remote  ancestors  of  mankind  grows  slowly, 
but  surely,  in  volume,  the  conviction  becomes  proportionately  stronger 
that  the  terminology  used  to  describe  them  is  unscientific  and  unfair.  Of 
course  names  often  become  so  conventionalized  that  their  implications 
are  no  longer  considered  as  judgments  passed  on  their  bearers;  or  they 
become  so  fossilized  that  they  survive  through  sheer  inertia.  As  the 
Fiji  Islanders  or  tribes  of  Africa  are  thought  of  as  pagans,  or  cannibals,  or 
savages,  so  men  of  the  great  Glacial  Age  are  called  prehistoric  with  all 
the  pride  that  a  self-conscious  civilization  can  put  into  the  term.  This 
pride  may  be  justified  by  the  argument  of  Thomas  quoted  above,  as  of 
survival  value.  But  when  placed  in  proper  perspective,  the  whole  scene 
is  rearranged.  An  enthusiast  over  the  achievements  of  those  most  ancient 
men  will  not  be  slow  to  turn  the  tables  the  other  way.  Even  such  appella- 
tions as  "men  of  the  Stone  Age"  and  especially  "the  primitive  peoples" 
have  a  ring  to  them,  qualitatively,  that  should  make  for  their  disuse,  in 
the  light  of  scientific  fact.  The  view  which  Thomas  gives^  of  the  mental 
life  and  education  of  those  men,  so  inconceivably  removed  from  us  in 
time,  ought  to  go  far  toward  the  reconstruction  of  language-technique,  if 
only  for  the  sake  of  ordinary  justice.  A  single  quotation  from  the  "Source 
Book  for  Social  Origins"  may  make  this  point  most  clear.  "Modern  inven- 
tions" says  Thomas  "are  magnificent  and  seem  quite  to  overshadow  the 
simpler  devices  of  primitive  times ;  but  when  we  consider  the  precedents, 
copies,  resources,  and  accumulated  knowledge  with  which  the  modern 
investigator  works,  and  on  the  other  hand  the  resourcefulness  of  the 
primitive  man  in  materials,  ideas,  and  in  the  inventive  habit  itself,  I 
confess  that  the  bow  and  arrow  seems  to  me  the  most  wonderful  inven- 
tion in  the  world^."  Further,  it  means  but  a  most  cursory  reading  of 
O.  T.  Mason's  account  of  "Woman's  Share  in  Primitive  Culture"  to 
complete  this  new  attitude  assumed  to  the  people  of  long  ago. 

In  the  light  of  all  this,  it  would  be  manifestly  unfair  not  to  say  unsci- 
entific to  think  of  those  folk  of  that  far-off  yesterday  in  any  other  way 
than  as  the  forbears  of  the  present  inhabitants  of  the  earth.  Hence  these 
pages  will  refer  to  them  as  Remote  Ancestors.  The  name  may  be  awk- 
ward, but  it  is  habit  after  all  that  rounds  the  edges  of  things.  This  train 
of  thought  was  started  several  years  ago  upon  reading  Thomas'  "Source 
Book  for  Social  Origins,"  In  it,  he  refers^  to  tribal  society  as  being  a 
"virtually  delayed  civilization,  and  the  savages  are  a  sort  of  contempo- 
raneous ancestry."  This  last  phrase  "contemporaneous  ancestry"  was  so 
illuminating,  suggestive,  and  above  all  so  utterly  frank  and  fair,  that  it 
persisted  in  thought,  and  led  to  the  idea  of  dividing  this  study  into  the 
three  major  parts  of  Remote  Ancestors,  Immediate  Ancestors,  and  Con- 
temporaries. In  whatever  spirit  this  may  be  taken,  it  is  safe  to  say  that 
some  revision  of  concepts  is  necessary  when  thinking  of  the  groups  that 
flourished  millennia  ago.  What  implications  this  may  have  for  theories  of 
civilization  and  progress,  may  be  touched  upon  subsequently. 

20 


War  and  Religion 


It  may  be  well  now  to  be  more  definite  as  to  the  time  limits  of  the 
periods  to  be  treated.  The  first,  that  of  Remote  Ancestors,  will  include 
those  countless  ages  stretching  from  the  dawn  that  first  saw  man  as  man 
on  this  earth,  to  the  budding  of  what  is  usually  referred  to  as  the  period 
of  the  early  civilizations,  such  as  Egj^pt,  Babylon,  Assyria.  But  in  this 
study  these  early  civilizations  will  mark  but  the  beginning  of  the  second 
large  division  called  that  of  Immediate  Ancestors.  This  latter  period 
extends  to  the  present  generation,  referred  to  as  the  period  of  Contem- 
porary Peoples. 

The  first,  vast  period,  that  of  Remote  Ancestors,  will  consist  of  two 
large  sections.  The  so-called  "Men  of  the  Old  Stone  Age"  will  be  con- 
sidered first.  While  not  satisfactory,  one  must  use  perforce  the  usual 
terms  employed  in  speaking  of  men  of  this  era  as  Eolithic,  Palaeolithic 
and  Neolithic.  The  second  section  will  deal  with  the  "  Contemporaneous 
Ancestors"  or  the  so-called  ethnic  groups,  such  as  the  aborigines  of  Tas- 
mania, Australia,  Siberia,  North  and  South  America,  India  and  Africa. 

The  second  large  division  will  have  three  main  sections.  The  first  will 
review  war  and  religion  among  the  Egyptians,  Babylonians,  Assyrians, 
Zoroastrians,  Buddhists  of  India,  Chinese  and  Japanese.  The  second 
.section  will  embrace  the  Greeks,  Romans  and  Semites.  The  third  will  set 
forth  the  attitude  of  Christianity  and  Mohammedanism. 

The  following  chapter  will  give  a  survey  of  contemporary  thought  on 
war  and  religion.  Attention  will  naturally  be  concentrated  on  the  imme- 
diate present,  A  closing  chapter  will  summarize  conclusions  and  will 
contain  a  word  on  a  theory  of  progress. 

Though  these  many  groups  will  be  investigated  only  as  regards  their 
reactions  to  war  and  religion,  the  material  at  hand  is  so  very  bulky  that 
every  effort  will  be  made  to  keep  strictly  within  due  proportions  the  fair 
samples  of  each  that  will  be  presented.  The  authorities  to  be  most  drawn 
upon  for  the  first  part  dealing  with  Remote  Ancestors  are  H.  F.  Osborn, 
in  his  "Men  of  the  Old  Stone  Age"  and  T.  E.  Peet  in  his  "The  Stone  and 
Bronze  Ages  in  Italy  and  Sicily." 

Osborn  considers,  at  some  length,  problems  that  belong  more  to  the 
biological  and  psychological  fields,  in  presenting  the  dawn  age  of  man. 
As  these  factors  are  to  be  treated  in  a  separate  work,  this  study  can  now 
present  but  the  fact  that  the  erect  attitude  enabled  upright  simians  to 
emerge  from  their  ancestral  forests  in  societies,  armed  with  sticks  and 
stones  "and  with  the  rudiments  of  all  the  powers  that  eventually  enabled 
them  to  conquer  the  world^."  The  psychological  analysis  of  these  semi- 
human  creatures  leaves  no  doubt  that  they  were  essentially  fighters,  with 
no  suggestion  of  rudimentary  religion  in  their  make-up*. 

Europe  was  not  the  only  scene  of  these  struggling  groups.  The  first 
periods  of  human  life,  called  Pre-Chellean  and  Chellean  have  left  their 
traces  all  over  the  world.  They  are  not  due  to  the  transmission  of  culture 
from  one  center,  but  arose  spontaneously  everywhere  because  of  the 
ubiquity  of  the  needs  of  war,  the  chase  and  domestic  life^.  Life  was  passed 
mainly  in  open  camps  with  the  rare  exceptions,  when  caverns  were  sought 
for  protection  from  enemies  and  as  rain  shelters  rather  than  as  retreats 
from  a  bitter,  cold  climate^.  The  workers  of  the  Acheulian  flints  w^ho 
were  probably  for  the  most  part  members  of  the  Neanderthal  race  pene- 

21 


War  and  Religion 


trated  all  parts  of  western  Europe  except  the  Scandinavian  and  Alpine 
ice-fields*.  "  It  is  only  in  late  Acheulian  times  that  human  burial  rites  or 
interments  begin  and  that  skeletal  remains  are  found^."  But  as  this 
part  is  to  deal  with  war  among  these  Remote  Ancestors,  further  reference 
to  these  first  evidences  of  religion  must  be  deferred  until  the  part  con- 
cerned with  religion  is  reached'".  Osborn  states  that  "In  many  charac- 
teristics the  Neanderthal  skull  is  shown  to  be  nearer  to  that  of  the  anthro- 
poid apes  than  to  that  of  Homo  Sapiens"." 

It  is  especially  valuable  to  include  here  the  reasoning  of  Broca  in 
explaining  the  superior  mean  capacity  of  the  skull  of  early  man.  He  said 
that  the  average  capacity  of  the  skull  in  civilized  nations  must  be  lowered 
by  the  preservation  of  a  considerable  number  of  individuals,  weak  in  mind 
and  body,  who  would  have  been  promptly  eliminated  in  the  savage  state, 
whereas  in  the  savage  state  the  average  includes  only  the  more  capable 
individuals  who  have  been  able  to  survive  under  extremely  hard  condi- 
tions of  life'-. 

But  this  turn  to  the  speculative  must  be  curbed'^  to  note  the  rigorous 
climatic  conditions'^  that  enforced  closer  association  among  the  Neander- 
thals with  the  resulting  impetus  to  social  integration^^.  This  chance  for 
development,  however,  did  not  last  long,  speaking  in  terms  of  geologic 
time,  for  "between  twenty  and  twenty-five  thousand  years  before  our 

era no  trace  of  the  survival  of  the  pure  Neanderthal  type  has  been 

found  in  any  of  the  Upper  Palaeolithic  burial  sites."  It  is  presumed  that 
this  sudden  disappearance  of  the  Neanderthals  was  due  in  part  to  degen- 
eration, in  part  to  the  very  severe  conditions  of  life  of  the  fourth  glacia- 
tion,  but  to  no  small  extent  to  the  entrance  into  Europe  of  the  superior 
Cro-Magnon  race  who  dispossessed  the  Neanderthals  of  their  principal 
stations  and  drove  them  out  of  the  country  or  killed  them  in  battle.  It 
would  seem  that  this  new  race  possessed  the  bow  and  arrow.  This  alone 
constituted  a  tremendous  advantage  over  the  Neanderthals  who  had 
only  wooden  weapons  and  the  stone  headed  dart  and  spear'^.  These  Cro- 
Magnons  belong  to  Homo  Sapiens.  Men  of  the  modern  type,  therefore, 
entered  Europe  somewhat  over  twenty-five  thousand  years  ago.  The 
culture  they  brought  to  Europe  bespeaks  connections  with  the  East, 
"making  it  probable  that  their  evolution  had  taken  place  somewhere  on 
the  continent  of  Asia'^." 

The  fact  that  no  evidence  has  thus  far  been  found  that  even  the  Nean- 
derthal women  were  spared  or  allowed  to  remain  in  the  country  is  grim 
proof  of  the  methods  of  warfare  of  the  Cro-Magnons.  This  new  race,  how- 
ever, was  a  comparatively  highly  cultured  one,  excelling  especially  in  the 
aesthetic  sense'*.  It  is  noted  that  "the  brain  capacity  of  the  Cro-Magnon 
woman  surpasses  that  of  the  average  male  of  today'^."  In  art,  this  race 
reached  such  a  high  point  of  excellence  that  Osborn  refers  to  them  as  "the 
Palaeolithic  Greeks'-"."  The  highest  point  of  development  they  reached 
is  known  as  the  period  of  the  Magdalenian  Culture  which  began  about 
16,000  B.  C.'-'  It  is  inferred  that  these  people  had  a  form  of  tribal  organ- 
ization. Certain  implements  of  reindeer  horn,  known  as  "batons  de  com- 
mandement,"  which  will  be  touched  upon  later,  constituting  one  of  the 
common  finds  from  this  age,  are  supposed  to  have  been  insignia  of  author- 
ity borne  by  the  chieftains-.    An  enumeration  of  the  weapons  used  by 

22 


War  and  Religion 


this  race  includes  the  description  of  javeUn  points  artistically  decorated, 
but  also  having  deep  grooves  "perhaps  intended  for  the  insertion  of 
poisonous  fluids  or  the  outlet  of  blood-^." 

Osborn  thinks  that  "the  decline  of  the  Cro-Magnons  as  a  powerful  race 
may  have  been  due  partly  to  environmental  causes  and  the  abandonment 
of  their  vigorous,  nomadic  life;"  or  it  may  be  they  "had  reached  the  end 
of  a  long  cj'cle  of  psychic  development  which  we  have  traced  from  the 
beginning  of  Aurignacian  times.  We  know  as  a  parallel  that  in  the  history 
of  many  civilized  races  a  period  of  great  artistic  and  industrial  develop- 
ment may  be  followed  by  a  period  of  stagnation  and  decline  without  any 
apparent  environmental  causes-''." 

The  last  phases  of  the  Old  Stone  Age  are  believed  to  have  extended 
from  about  10,000  to  about  7,000  B.  C.  It  is  said  that  the  entrance  to 
the  final  cultures  is  marked  by  a  transition  even  more  abrupt  than  the 
preceding  changes.  As  Osborn  saw  mostly  warfare  at  the  remote  begin- 
ning, so  he  lays  greatest  emphasis  on  this  omnipresent  element,  in  evolu- 
tion, in  his  general  summary.  "No  doubt  each  invasion,  each  conquest, 
each  substitution  of  an  industry  or  a  culture  had  within  it  the  impelling 
contest  of  the  spirit  and  will  of  man,  the  intelligence  directing  various 
industrial  and  warlike  implements,  the  superiority  either  of  force  or  of 
mind^^." 

Pitt-Rivers,  of  course,  fully  avers  that  the  art  of  war  was  dominant  in 
the  infancy  of  society-®.  Keane  affords  similar  testimony^^.  Kellogg,  while 
more  extreme  in  his  chronology,  agrees  entirely  that  Glacial  Man  was 
exclusively  a  hunter  and  killer.  Fighting  was  carried  on  both  intra-  and 
inter-group.  Coming  down  to  the  last  stages  of  the  Stone  Age,  he  con- 
nects Neolithic  Man  with  his  bows  and  arrows,  his  strategy,  cavalry,  his 
fighting  at  greater  distances,  and  in  groups  as  armies,  with  the  wars  of 
Crete,  Mycenae  and  Egypt^.  Thomson  thinks  that  the  keen  and  literal 
struggle,  in  the  early  days,  round  the  platter  of  subsistence  "wrought  a 
natural  selection  to  which  we  of  today  owe  much."  Later,  when  self- 
assertiveness  supervened,  the  deadly  inter-tribal  wars  favored  not  only 
strength  but  also  solidarity,  and  thus  made  for  the  civilization  and  prog- 
ress of  the  present^^.  Spencer  assuredly  finds  that  the  co-operation 
most  urgent  at  the  outset  "is  that  required  for  dealing  with  environing 
enemies  and  prey^**." 

This  tale  could  be  extended  almost  ad  infinitum ;  for  the  facts  which 
have  been  so  painstakingly  revealed  from  the  caverns  and  kitchen-mid- 
dens and  excavations  tell  the  same  story  of  man  pre-eminently  the  fighter. 
His  struggle  for  existence  is  a  most  bloody  one;  and  it  is  safe  to  say  that 
the  pugnacious  instinct  is  as  active  as  are  the  instincts  of  food  and  sex. 
Of  religion,  the  accounts  of  earliest  man  are  all  silent.  In  the  Ught  of 
facts,  therefore,  war  is  the  primary  factor  in  human  evolution,  long 
existent  before  any  manifestations  of  religion  appear.  When  and  how 
religion  enters  the  pattern  that  evolution  is  weaving  is  to  be  dealt  with 
now. 


23 


War  and  Religion 


Section  B — Religion.    Part  1 — Remote  Ancestors 

It  seems  generally  agreed  that  it  is  impossible  to  state  exactly  how  and 
when  man  started  on  his  religious  evolution.  Of  course  in  theory,  genet- 
ics invariably  proceed  from  pre-human  stages.  Religion  may  not  be  an 
exception  to  this  rule;  but  as  facts,  in  the  strictest  sense  of  the  term,  are 
now  of  uppermost  interest,  the  argument  will  presume  religion  to  be  a 
human  institution.  The  evidence  so  far  yielded  by  exploration  and 
research  tends  to  show  that  when  man  assumed  an  attitude  to  the 
mystery  of  the  death  of  certain  individuals,  his  thought  and  action  meant 
the  beginning  of  religion.  However  Euhemeristic  or  Spencerian  this  may 
sound,  the  facts  all  point  that  way. 

One  must  be  clear  first  on  man's  earliest  attitude  to  death.  It  would 
appear  to  be  reasonable  to  say  that  death  in  general  was  as  ordinary  a 
phenomenon  to  remote  man  as  were  all  events  in  nature.  Opinion 
inclines  to  the  view  that  the  bodies  of  the  dead  and  of  the  aged  were 
thrown  out  to  the  hyenas  or  simply  neglected  by  the  way.  Osborn  is 
vacillating  but  lends  weight  to  this  view^^  Brinton  argues  for  simple 
exposure  of  the  body,  for  beasts  and  birds  to  consume^^.  Kellogg  agrees 
with  this.  He  says  that  the  earliest  known  human  culture  did  not  include 
the  crudest  elements  of  religion,  at  least  as  they  are  made  discernible  by 
any  special  care  of  the  dead^^.  While  Leuba  thinks  contrariwise,  his 
words  seem  to  apply  more  to  ethnic  societies  of  the  present  day,  though 
he  does  say  that  any  person  belonging  to  the  human  species  must  have  an 
aversion  for  casting  to  the  dogs  the  body  of  a  person  liked  and  respected*^. 

But  the  facts  all  seem  to  point  to  a  time  when  man  gave  no  heed  to  the 
dead;  and  on  the  face  of  it,  it  is  most  reasonable  to  suppose  that  there 
was  such  a  time.  However  uncertain  Osborn  may  appear  to  be,  yet  he 
is  authority  for  the  statement:  "It  is  only  in  late  Acheulian  times  that 
human  burial  rites  or  interments  begin  and  that  skeletal  remains  are 
found^^." 

What  brought  man  to  the  practice  of  burial  rites  and  ceremonial 
interments? 

A  rational  explanation  may  be  found  in  the  following.  The  Durk- 
heim  school  lays  all  emphasis  on  the  power  of  sociality.  It  goes,  if  one 
may  venture  the  opinion,  to  the  mistaken  length  of  reducing  the  individ- 
ual's role  to  nil.  But  if  earliest  man  was  for  the  most  part  a  fighter,  his 
group  or  herd  instinct  was  most  valuable  if  it  was  guided  by  skilful 
leaders.  Both  reason  and  history  testify  to  good  leadership  as  a  survival 
factor.  Sociality  is  extremely  valuable;  but  leadership  is  equally  so. 
The  mystery  of  the  genius  of  leadership  must  have  worked  powerfully 
upon  man;  just  as  the  mystery  of  the  social  bond  must  have  reacted 
powerfully  upon  the  leader.  The  unusual,  the  exceptional,  the  super- 
natural, as  Jevons  uses  the  term,  was  evinced  when  one  being,  apparently 
no  different  from  the  rest,  came  forward  at  the  critical  moment,  and 
brought  the  group  to  do  what  it  deemed  to  be  the  impossible.  This  inter- 
pretation may  be  dubbed  atavistic,  a  resurrected  hero-worship  idea;  but 
the  facts  of  earliest  man,  and  the  entire  range  of  human  history,  support 
it.  It  must  have  been  the  dead  body  of  the  powerful  leader  that  still 
evoked  those  feelings  of  regard,  inspired  by  him  while  alive,  that  made 

24 


War  and  Religion 


the  group  first  bestow  some  attention  upon  a  corpse.  Thus  may  have 
arisen  ceremonial  burial  and  with  it  the  beginnings  of  religion. 

This  interpretation  is  not  meant  to  be  an  exclusive  one.  There  may 
have  been  other  causes  at  work  prior  to  and  simultaneous  with  this 
system  of  interment,  making  for  the  development  of  religious  thought 
and  practice.  But  there  is  no  tangible  evidence  of  these.  And  as  theory 
is  being  eschewed  for  the  present,  it  is  safe  to  assert  that  all  facts  point 
to  the  tombs  of  the  chiefs  as  the  first  and  greatest  evidence  that  man  was 
assuming  an  attitude  to  mystery,  that  is,  he  was  beginning  to  think 
"religiously." 

A.  H.  Quiggin  finds  that  our  only  guides  to  the  religion  of  Primeval 
Man  are  the  few  hints  found  in  prehistoric  graves^^.  "...  .to  the  Neo- 
lithic Age  belong  some  of  the  most  impressive  funeral  monuments  ever 
erected  by  man,  ranking  justly  among  the  wonders  of  the  world.  The 
most  characteristic  and  remarkable  forms  of  burial  (probably  reserved 
for  chiefs  and  important  persons)  were  those  in  the  long  barrows  and 
those  associated  with  megaliths  or  stone  monuments'^."  Here  Leuba  can 
adduce  some  helpful  testimony'^.  In  general,  he  says  that  one  finds  very 
early  and  in  many  tribes  that  "warriors  and  chiefs  are  assigned  to  a  bet- 
ter and  special  heaven,  etc.'^"  Jevons  finds  that  "blood,  babes  and 
corpses"  are  three  classes  of  objects  that  are  inherently  taboo*".  Keane 
proves  from  neolithic  architecture  that  it  was  in  burial,  in  veneration 
(fear)  of  the  dead  that  the  first  glimmerings  of  religious  sentiment 
appear*^  Brinton  discusses  this  material  at  some  length*^  and  mentions 
specifically  the  theory  that  religion  began  when  the  living  thought 
seriously  of  the  dead,  which  he  characterizes  as  a  hasty  assertion"**. 
Nevertheless  he  finds  also  that  the  characteristic  feature  of  the  neolithic 
period  is  the  funeral  monument.  "Then  the  full  meaning  of  Death 
seems  to  have  broken  suddenly  on  man,  and  his  whole  life  becomes  little 
more  than  a  meditatio  mortis,  a  preparation  for  the  world  beyond  the 
tomb**."  Kellogg  finds  only  Glacial  and  early  post-Glacial  Man  to  have 
possessed  the  beginnings  of  religion,  "at  least  that  basic  feature  of  it 
betrayed  by  special  attention  to  the  dead  body*^."  He  refers  specifically 
to  Neohthic  Man  with  his  convention  for  the  burial  of  the  dead*®. 

It  is,  of  course,  from  Osborn  and  Peet  that  convincing  evidence  in 
abundance  can  be  secured.  Osborn  gives  a  detailed  account  of  the  most 
recent  discoveries  in  the  Dordogne  region*^.  The  ceremonial  burials  dis- 
covered there  and  elsewhere,  enabled  him  to  conclude  that  "the  Neander- 
thal race  was  imbued  with  reverence  for  the  dead ..."  The  Cro-Magnons 
followed  the  burial  customs  of  the  Neanderthals  in  many  respects**. 
There  were  interred  with  the  remains,  implements  of  industry  and  war- 
fare together  with  offerings  of  food*^.  His  general  conclusion  is  that 
"The  religious  sense,  the  appreciation  of  some  power  or  powers  behind 
the  great  phenomena  of  nature,  is  evidenced  in  the  reverence  for  the 
dead,  in  burials  apparently  related  to  notions  of  a  future  existence  of  the 
dead,  and  especially  in  the  mysteries  of  the  art  of  the  caverns^"." 

Peet  finds  even  more  true  for  the  Bronze  and  Iron  Ages  what  Osborn 
established  for  the  Palaeolithic^^  He  also  speaks  of  the  considerable 
funeral  furniture  and  special  methods  of  sepulture^'.  He  shows  that 
there  was  a  very  elaborate  cult  connected  with  the  burial  of  the  dead^. 

25 


War  and  Religion 


From  resemblances  noted  with  the  finds  made  in  other  parts  of  Europe, 
he  concludes  that  the  neolithic  inhabitants  of  Italy  were  of  the  same  stock 
as  those  of  other  parts  of  Europe,  North  Africa  and  Asia  Minor^. 

He  calls  the  period  succeeding  the  Neolithic,  the  Eneolithic,  the  dis- 
tinguishing feature  of  which  is  the  rock-hewn  chamber-tomb*^.  This  period 
is  the  link  uniting  our  Immediate  Ancestors  with  our  Remote  Ancestors; 
and  it  is  best  mirrored,  so  far,  in  the  remains  on  the  island  of  Sardinia 
with  its  inhabited  caves,  rock-tombs,  "Giants'  Graves,"  dolmens,  men- 
hirs and  nuraghi*^.  Of  these,  the  nuraghi  seem  to  be  the  most  interesting 
as  they  were  the  fortresses  of  the  head  of  the  tribe,  "the  centers  perhaps 
of  the  tribal  religion"*^.  Peet  says  that  the  advent  of  the  first  weapons  of 
copper  is  the  distinguishing  feature  of  the  period.  The  influence  of  Crete 
and  the  Spanish  peninsula  are  apparent  in  Sardinia^. 

Turning  to  the  Lake  Dwellers  and  the  Terramara  folk,  Peet  discloses 
the  type  cultures  of  the  late  eneolithic  and  of  the  bronze*^.  Here  again 
connection  with  the  iEgean  area  is  evident  in  cemeteries  with  elaborate 
tombs  and  rich  funeral  furniture^".  Some  interments  show  the  transition 
stage  from  bronze  to  iron^^ 

A  summary  of  all  this  material  must  show  how  thoroughly  it  substan- 
tiates the  ideas  formulated  in  this  study.  When  man  looms  on  the  hazy 
horizon  which  the  light  of  scientific  data  is  making  clearer  every  day,  he 
is  found  engaged  in  a  deadly  struggle  for  existence  with  a  self-preserva- 
tion program  of  "kill  or  be  killed."  Of  the  more  than  scanty  remains  of 
those  millennially  distant  days,  there  is  nothing  to  show  that  man  had 
originally  any  religious  ideas  at  all.  As  this  instinctive  program  of  self- 
preservation  developed  the  horde  and  horde-leadership,  there  emerge 
into  the  realm  of  fact  the  first  discovered  bits  of  evidence  that  man  was 
aware  of  some  mystery  inhering  in  things.  His  first  attitude  to  this 
unknown  and  unknowable  is  shown  presumably  in  the  care  with  which 
he  regarded  the  apparently  useless  dead  body  of  his  leader.  Osborn'.s 
supposition  that  "batons  de  commandement"  were  insignia  of  authority 
borne  by  the  chieftains^-  is  helpful  here,  more  especially  when  he  testifies 
that  "Geographically,  the  batons  spread  from  the  Pyrenees  into  Belgium 
and  eastward  into  Moravia  and  Russia^." 

At  all  events,  the  facts  reveal  man  showing  particular  regard  to  some 
dead  bodies;  and  the  evidence  for  the  ofiice  of  chief,  though  slight,  makes 
it  not  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  early  man's  respect,  love,  fear  and 
reverence  for  his  living  chief  roused  the  earhest  religious  thoughts  over 
his  dead  body.  For  the  chief  had  shown  himself  a  conqueror  of  every- 
thing else  except  that  mystery  which  stole  the  chief's  breath,  or  made  the 
life-blood  run  out  of  his  body,  or  subjected  him,  the  otherwise  all-power- 
ful, to  the  same  ordinary  process  of  decay  and  drivelling  age  that  all  other 
mortals  had  to  pass  through.  The  nature  of  the  regard  for  the  dead  was 
.shown  in  the  funeral  furniture,  the  most  common  objects  of  which  were 
the  weapons  used  in  the  life-struggle. 

As  life  became  more  complex,  it  can  hardly  be  doubted  that  social 
integration  exalted  to  an  ever  higher  plane  the  leaders  who  did  so  much 
to  secure  the  survival  of  the  group.  A  people  that  could  reach  the 
remarkable  art  level,  so  vividly  described  by  Osborn  and  others,  must 
have  enjoyed  an  unusual  degree  of  social  complexity  which  was  built  on 

26 


War  and  Religion 


a  substratum  of  division  of  labor  and  specialization  in  functioning. 
Wliile  some  scholars  see  in  the  marvellous  cave-art,  connections  with 
religion,  the  weight  of  opinion  seems  justly  placed  on  the  contrary  view. 
It  does  appear  to  imply  too  much  of  sophistication  to  read  magical  prac- 
tices into  these  artistic  endeavors  of  our  Remote  Ancestors.  For  this 
reason,  this  accomit  lets  the  matter  rest  by  quoting  Osborn's  reference  to 
the  men  of  the  Magdalenian  Culture  as  "the  Pala^lithic  Greeks." 

The  distinctive  religious  fact  of  those  earliest  races  of  man  was  that  of 
the  burial  rite,  the  ceremonial  interment.  This  becomes  clearer  as 
Neolithic  and  Eneolithic  Man  unfold  their  story,  the  main  features  of 
which  deal  with  their  respect  and  regard  for  the  dead.  This  closing  period 
of  the  life  of  our  Remote  Ancestors  was  marked  by  the  erection  of  the 
giant  tombs  that  could  have  been  intended  only  for  the  leaders,  the  chief- 
tains, especially  those  head  men  who  had  led  their  hosts  to  victory. 

This  unfoldment,  then,  of  the  earliest  evidence  concerning  man  in  his 
reactions  to  war  and  religion  shows  that  war  was  primary,  and  existent 
long  before  religion  entered  upon  the  scene.  As  social  grouping  increases, 
the  men  who  excel  in  fighting  and  in  directing  the  battles  of  the  group 
arouse  such  sentiments  in  their  followers  that  they  persist  beyond  the 
leader's  life.  The  dead  body  is  honored  by  careful  burial.  This  ceremonial 
interment  preserved,  to  this  day,  the  first  proof  so  far  discovered,  that 
man  had  started  on  his  religious  evolution.  The  memory  of  the  dead  chief 
was  a  source  of  power  for  his  successor  and  for  the  group.  The  religious 
tradition  may  be  said  to  have  started,  as  far  as  the  evidence  goes,  for 
the  ends  of  war;  and  to  have  grown  and  have  been  perpetuated  for  the 
same  reason.  Hence  religion  was  essential  and  secondary  to  war;  and 
its  connection  with  war  was  thoroughgoing  throughout  this  first  period, 
after  it  appeared  in  the  ceremonial  burials  of  Palteolithic  Man,  and  was 
continuously  evinced  in  the  megalithic  monuments  that  were  the  dis- 
tinguishing feature  of  the  closing  days  of  our  Remote  Ancestors. 

Instead  of  continuing  the  thread  into  the  clear,  historic  weaving  of  our 
Immediate  Ancestors,  it  was  deemed  best  to  pause  here  to  consider  those 
present-day  helpless  folk  whose  culture  is  supposed  to  parallel,  to  some 
extent,  the  life  of  our  Remote  Ancestors;  and  who  have  already  been 
referred  to,  in  the  words  of  Thomas,  as  our  Contemporary  Ancestors. 

Section  B — Part  2 — War  and  Religion  Among  Contemporaneous  Ancestors 

Tylor,  in  his  "On  the  Limits  of  Savage  Religion,"  gives  a  timely 
reminder  that  missionary  influences  have  affected  the  beliefs  of  these 
humble  folk  for  hundreds  of  years^.  Granting  this  to  be  a  fact  is  of  no 
special  concern  to  this  study.  For  the  present  interest  is  to  observe 
man's  reactions  to  war  and  religion.  It  is  immaterial  what  extraneous 
influences  affected  his  position. 

Tylor  in  his  "On  the  Tasmanians  as  Representatives  of  Palaeolithic 
Man,"  portrays  a  picture  of  these  recently  vanished  folk  that  resembles  in 
broad  outlines  the  characteristics  of  our  Remote  Ancestors  as  sketched 
above*^.  H.  L.  Roth  in  "Aborigines  of  Tasmania"  fills  in  many  details**. 
Much  of  their  religious  thinking  centered  about  death".  Of  three  forms 
of  taboo,  two  related  to  death®^.     As  for  war,  they  were  perpetually 

27 


War  and  Religion 


engaged  in  savage  battling  among  themselves**^.  Further  references 
would  but  show  that  they  had  a  minimum  of  religion  and  a  maximum  of 
war.  (See  further  references,  70-75,  in  the  Reference  Section.)  As  they 
are,  in  part,  of  the  stock  of  the  Australian  Aborigines,  the  outline  of  war 
and  religion  among  these  latter  will  atone  for  this  curt  treatment  of  the 
Tasmanians. 

The  connection  between  the  Tasmanians  and  the  Australian  Aborigines 
is  set  forth  in  the  up-to-date,  scientific  studies  of  Baldwin  and  Spencer.^* 
They  refer  to  the  Tasmanians  as  of  the  Pala?olithic  type.  While  the 
Australian  tribes  are  described  as  being  quite  pacific  in  their  mutual  rela- 
tions'^ '^,  there  is  abundant  material  to  prove  that  this  is  relatively, 
rather  than  absolutely,  true'^. 

Sacred  ceremonies  play  a  very  large  part  in  the  life  of  these  people. 
They  are  all  connected  with  the  ancestors  of  the  tribe*".  "In  every  tribe 
there  exists  a  firm  belief  in  the  reincarnation  of  ancestors*^"  Totemism 
is  all  prevalent;  and  it  is  very  valuable  to  note  here  that  most  of  the 
totemic  groups  believe  that  they  arose  as  the  direct  offspring  of  one  great 
eponymous  ancestor*^.  This  brings  some  support  to  the  notion  that  reli- 
gion had  its  rise,  in  part,  at  the  tomb  of  the  dead  leader.  The  belief  in 
the  Wollunqua  totem  most  vividly  illustrates  this  supposition.  (Refer- 
ences 83,  84,  85  and  86.) 

Of  direct  bearing  on  the  matter  of  warfare  among  these  tribes  are  the 
bloody  rites  of  initiation^';  the  practice  of  infanticide**;  and  the  fire 
ceremony**  which  was  a  form  of  personal  arbitration  of  old  quarrels. 
All  ceremonies  were  handed  down  to  them  from  the  Alcheringa  ancestors 
who  were  a  kind  of  supermen**'.  They  believed  in  good  and  evil  spirits*'. 
The  Avenging  Party  is  a  common  institution*^.  The  medicine  man  aids 
the  Party  to  find  the  guilty  man*^  **.  The  authors  say  that  year  after  year 
an  endless  kind  of  vendetta  is  maintained  among  these  tribes,  though 
fortunately,  it  sometimes  happens  that  there  is  more  noise  than  blood- 
shed**. Their  weapons  and  implements  are  typical  of  both  the  Palaeo- 
lithic and  Neolithic  Periods.     (References  96  to  98.) 

Particularly  noteworthy  are  the  Churinga  which  are  specially  marked 
sticks  kept  in  a  sacred  storehouse  called  the  Ertnatulunga.  These  are  the 
most  sacred  possessions  of  the  tribe.  These  sticks  represent  not  only  the 
living  members  of  the  tribe  but  also  the  dead  ones,  notably  the  special 
men  of  the  Alcheringa,  described  roughly  before  as  a  kind  of  supermen 
ancestors.  The  Churinga  of  these  dead  are  especially  valuable  for  battle, 
giving  to  the  possessor  courage  and  accuracy  of  aim**.  This  may  serve  as 
a  climax  to  the  abundant  testimony,  afiForded  by  these  volumes,  of  the 
close  connection  between  war  and  religion  among  these  Australian 
Aborigines;  and  at  the  same  time  of  the  large  part  the  important  dead 
play  in  their  warfare.    (See  further  references  100  to  106.) 

This  testimony  from  the  Australian  Aborigines  is  fully  confirmed  by  a 
study  of  the  American  Indian  (see  references  107  to  1 15) ;  by  a  most  super- 
ficial review  of  the  "Reports  of  the  Cambridge  Anthropological  Expedi- 
tion to  Torres  Straits"  (see  references  116  to  122);  in  Codrington's 
account  of  the  Melanesians.  Codrington  shows  how  the  concept  "Mana" 
is  closely  bound  with  success  in  warfare.  The  test  of  Mana  in  the  ghost 
of  a  great  departed  warrior  is  the  victory  he  helped  his  folk  to  obtain. 

28 


War  and  Religion 


(See  references  123  to  127.)  The  aboriginal  folk  of  Africa  also  have 
beliefs  and  customs  which  show  how  vital  is  the  bond  that  unites  war 
and  religion.  (See  references  128  to  145.)  W.  H.  R.  Rivers  in  his  work 
on  the  Todas  of  India  (see  references  146  to  153)  gives  pjeculiarly  inter- 
esting support  to  the  weighty  evidence  already  alluded  to.  The  traits  of 
war  gods  and  of  a  warrior  people  survive  among  this  isolated  group  in 
India  with  slightly  greater  functioning  power  than  that  which  marks  a 
vestigial  organ.  Rivers  almost  apologetically  explains  that  "This  disuse 
of  weapons  has  indeed  so  obvious  an  explanation  that  it  cannot  be  treated 
as  an  instance  of  degeneration."  Does  not  this  opinion  betray  the  uncon- 
scious thought  processes  that  associate  war  and  its  weapons  with  all  that 
is  virile,  alive  and  possibly  regenerative  and  progressive  in  humanity? 
Traversing  Asia  from  tropic  India  to  bleak  Siberia  there  are  discovered 
tribes  whose  blood  feuds,  blood-revenges,  warfare  and  Shamanism  paral- 
lel all  the  preceding  record.  Passing  note  should  be  made  of  groups 
referred  to  as  Palaeo-Siberians,  who  leave  the  corpse  a  short  distance 
from  the  door  of  the  hut  to  be  eaten  by  dogs.  (See  references  153  to  163.) 
Turning  to  the  Inca  of  South  America,  it  is  found  that  they  claimed 
divine  origin  for  themselves  thus  giving  a  religious  character  to  the  wars 
of  conquest  they  carried  on.  Other  South  American  Aborigines  wor- 
shipped war  gods  by  pouring  out  to  them  the  blood  of  prisoners  or  offer- 
ing the  hearts  of  prisoners  to  them.  Ancestor  worship  was  generally 
practiced.  Careful  attention  was  given  the  disposal  of  the  dead.  There 
was  an  abundance  of  funeral  furniture,  not  the  least  item  of  which  was 
the  weapon.    (See  references  164  to  170.) 

The  foregoing  makes  it  amply  clear  that  it  is  in  the  death  of  the  head 
man  that  these  Remote  and  Contemporaneous  Ancestors  find  a  great 
stimulus  for  thought  on  the  mystery  in  things.  It  is  the  ghost  or  spirit 
of  the  departed,  with  its  Churinga,  its  Mana,  its  power,  that  is  appealed 
to  in  various  ways  mainly  for  the  sake  of  success  in  warfare.  Haddon 
summarizes  it  well  in  saying  that  the  sacred  principle  of  the  African 
Aborigines  and  their  ilk  is:  "Do  unto  your  ancestors  as  you  would  they 
should  do  unto  you."    (Compare  preceding  reference  130.) 

But  whether  the  death  of  certain  individuals  did  or  did  not  initiate 
to  a  great  extent  man's  religious  evolution  is  at  present  beside  the  mark. 
This  rapid  glance  at  these  groups  commonly  known  as  the  men  of  the 
Stone  Age,  and  as  ethnic  societies  such  as  the  Tasmanians,  Australians, 
American  Indians,  Torres  Straits  inhabitants,  African  tribes,  Todas  of 
India,  Siberian  folk  and  South  American  Aborigines,  reveals  the  close 
interrelations  that  have  ever  been  maintained  between  war  and  religion. 
War,  death  and  religion  seem  to  constitute  a  trilogy  of  the  drama  of 
human  unfoldment.  The  struggle  for  existence  did  not  become  the  less 
bloody  because  man  was  developing  a  superior  brain,  and  concomitantly 
evolving  the  mysterious  sanctions  of  religion.  On  the  contrary,  an 
essential  part  of  the  ceremonious  care  of  the  dead  was  the  dispostion  of 
weapons  beside  the  corpse. 

The  question  may  be  raised  as  to  the  legitimacy  of  referring  to  these 
isolated  ceremonial  burials  of  the  Stone  Age,  if  not  to  the  bloody  rites 
and  practices  of  the  ethnic  folk,  as  being  of  a  religious  nature.  But  it  may 
be  justified  on  the  basis  of  the  definition  of  religion  used  in  this  study,  as 

29 


War  and  Religion 


simply  an  attitude  to  mystery.  This  can  include  the  recognition  of  a 
faith  with  a  god  or  gods  or  without  them.  The  mysterious  power  or 
powers  in  and  about  man  may  be  vaguely  referred  to  as  Churinga,  Mana, 
Manitou,  spirits  or  ghosts.  It  may  be  evidenced  in  the  special  forms  of 
interment  alone.  It  may  call  for  sacrifices  of  the  bloodiest  character  or 
merely  for  beautiful  prayers.  It  may  consist  of  magical  rites  or  on  the 
other  hand  of  a  tenuous  system  of  charitable  and  ethical  endeavor  with 
vague  intimations  of  the  impossibility  of  penetrating  beyond  the  veil. 
But  the  heart  of  it  all  is  the  mystery  inherent  in  things. 

This  sense  of  mystery  seemed  to  baffle  man  first,  as  far  as  actual  testi- 
mony so  far  wrested  from  a  fabulously  ancient  past  goes,  when  he  stood 
by  the  corpse  of  the  leader  who  helped  him  conquer  in  war.  For  it  was 
in  war  that  man  needed  most  his  genius.  The  conquests  of  beasts  of  prey 
and  animals  for  food  could  not  have  pricked  his  mental  processes  beyond 
the  stage  reached  by  the  wariest  and  most  cunning  animals  which  had 
accomplished  as  much  for  themselves.  Again,  however,  be  it  emphasized, 
that  this  does  not  mean  that  man  may  not  have  been  dimly  aware  of 
mystery  when  the  elements  of  nature  baffled  and  overpowered  him. 
Teratism  may  have  preceded  the  incitement  of  the  war-hero's  corpse  and 
tomb,  in  opening  man's  mind  to  the  elements  of  religion.  But  the  only 
evidence  from  the  dim  past  comes  from  the  grave,  the  tomb,  the  dolmen, 
the  megalithic  monuments. 

Again,  teratism,  or  animatism,  or  animism,  or  totemism,  or  Frazer's 
pre-religious  stage  of  magic,  or  taboo  seem  to  imply  thoughts  far  beyond 
earliest  man.  Further,  none  of  them  seems  close  enough  to  the  demands 
of  primeval  struggle.  Food  is  the  fundamental  problem  of  life.  Sex  is 
almost  equally  so.  Food  and  sex  questions  become  acute  when  life  is 
lived  in  groups.  The  mighty,  stimulating  problem,  then,  must  have  been 
the  one  of  group  against  group.  The  array  of  evidence  from  Remote 
Ancestors,  so  thoroughly  supplemented  by  the  bloody  tale  of  Contem- 
poraneous Ancestors  with  its  great  homage  paid  to  the  powerful  ancestors 
of  the  Alcheringa,  to  the  war-chiefs,  the  men  with  Mana,  or  to  the  Only 
Inca,  must  reveal  how  true  it  appeared  and  appears  to  these  folk  that 
when  they  kill  their  enemies  they  are  serving  a  most  sacred,  holy  cause. 
The  successful  leader  of  the  group  seems  to  be  the  most  natural  source  for 
arousing  thoughts  on  the  mysterious.  This  was  early  man's  most  pressing 
need  in  the  life  struggle;  and  it  is  not  insignificant  that  the  only  evidence 
that  man  pondered  on  the  mysterious  in  those  remote  ages  should  come 
from  the  ceremonial  burials.  Nowhere  have  any  objects  been  unearthed, 
connected  with  the  Stone  Age,  that  show  man  reflecting  on  the  mystery 
of  lightning,  thunder,  earthquake,  volcano,  flood  and  whirlwind.  It 
does  seem  reasonable  to  say  that  these  baffling  elements  must  have  early 
stirred  within  him  intimations  of  that  Power  so  variously  called  and 
called  upon,  by  him  as  well  as  by  our  Immediate  Ancestors  and  by  men 
of  today.  But  these  did  not  represent  continuously  pressing  needs.  It 
was  leadership  that  was  vital.  The  man  with  organizing  and  executive 
genius,  especially  to  win  the  battle,  was  the  man  who  gave  intimations  of 
that  greater  power  which  invested  everything  the  great  man  touched 
with  his  Mana. 

Whether  all  religion  followed  from  this,  or  it  was  one  of  the  principal 

30 


War  and  Religion 


manifestations  of  the  dawning  of  the  rehgious  sense,  the  all-important 
fact  remains  that  when  religion  does  appear  on  the  scene,  it  is  the  abettor 
of  war.  No  matter  in  what  part  of  the  globe  men  of  this  early  estate  are 
studied,  they  are  found  spending  much,  if  not  most  of  their  time,  battling 
or  preparing  for  battle.  Religion  enters  upon  the  scene  approving,  incit- 
ing and  blessing  the  hosts  thnt  ceremoniously  lay  weapons  about  the 
carefully  interred  corpse;  or  that  go  forth  with  sacred  sticks  and  stones, 
the  Churinga.  the  Shaman's  box,  the  dead  body  of  the  warrior  blessed 
with  Mana,  to  defeat  and  slay  their  enemies.  War  is  primary;  religion  is 
essential  and  secondary  to  it.  Religion  finds  its  usefulness,  in  great  part, 
throughout  this  entire  period  of  Remote  Ancestors,  in  insuring  the  suc- 
cess of  its  battling  votaries. 

If  it  be  grudgingly  or  ungrudgingly  agreed  that  such  relations  between 
war  and  religion  were  a  vital  part  of  the  metamorphosis  of  religion  as  well 
as  of  the  social  process  as  a  whole,  still  comfort  is  often  sought  by  those 
who  show  extreme,  if  not  laudable  concern  for  a  theory  of  progress,  in 
the  prospect  of  the  marvelous  spiritual  advance  that  man  was  to  make  in 
the  so-called  historic  era.  Balm  is  found  in  the  reflection  that  all  begin- 
nings are  crude.  He  who  sees  the  artist  merely  drawing  lines,  mixing 
colors,  and  making  a  few  daubs,  and  has  never  seen  complete  the  inspired 
work  of  the  artist's  vivid  imagination,  would  have,  necessarily,  but 
derision  for  art. 

Accordingly  one  is  urged  to  look  at  the  glorious  pictures  of  the  earliest 
and,  more  especially,  of  present-day  civilizations.  The  intimation  is  that 
religion  will  be  found  to  be  as  quahtatively  different  from  and  superior 
to  the  attitude  assumed  to  mystery  by  our  Remote  Ancestors,  as  modern 
scientific  man  is  different  from  the  so-called  savage.  To  satisfy  such 
natural  if  not  just  expectations,  the  light  of  history  is,  therefore,  turned 
on  the  scenes  which  once  filled  with  such  pomp  and  grandeur  the  banks 
of  the  Nile,  Euphrates  and  Tigris;  which  reveal  Persian  pageantry  and 
the  perfervid  life  of  India,  the  quaintness  of  China  and  Japan,  the  dazzl- 
ing intellectual  and  artistic  eminence  of  Greece,  and  the  trappings  of 
Imperial  Rome,  and  the  mystic  visions  which  the  Semite  beheld  in  the 
barren  desert.  And  the  report  of  these  very  visions  was  carried  with 
incredible  swiftness  by  the  Roman  Eagle  with  its  Hellenistic  wings  to  the 
north  and  west,  where  it  was  translated  into  the  symbol  of  the  Cross, 
which  has  been  carried  for  almost  two  thousand  years  by  the  marching 
hosts  of  Christendom  in  Europe  and  America.  To  the  south  and  east  the 
report  of  these  visions  was  carried  by  the  intrepid  rider  of  the  Arabian 
steed;  and  made  over  into  the  symbol  of  the  Crescent,  became  the  stand- 
ard of  the  mighty  Mohammedan  world. 

After  one  has  given  regardful  attention  to  this  kaleidoscopic  view  of 
these  nations,  which  constitute  the  period  of  our  Immediate  Ancestors, 
one  is  prepared  to  form  a  judgment  on  the  relations  of  war  and  religion 
throughout  this  second  period,  compare  it  with  the  results  found  in  the 
case  of  our  Remote  Ancestors;  and  then  proceed  with  an  investigation 
of  Contemporaries. 


31 


///.  War  and  Religion  in  Fact:  Period  of 
Immediate  Ancestors 

Section  A — Bird's-Eye  View  of  War  in  the  First  Part  of  the  Period 

Breasted,  in  his  "Ancient  Times"  says  that  the  men  of  Stone  Age 
Europe,  alter  fifty  thousand  years  of  progress  carried  on  by  their  own 
efforts,  reached  a  point,  about  3,000  B.  C,  where  they  could  advance  no 
farther.  It  is  in  the  Orient,  therefore,  that  he  finds  the  beginning  of 
civiHzation  which  is  between  five  and  six  thousand  years  old.  When 
Europe  ac(iuired  the  use  of  metals  and  writing  from  the  Orient,  it  was 
then  that  civilized  leadership  both  in  peace  and  war  shifted  slowly  from 
the  Orient  to  Europe^  As  Thomas  waxed  eloquent  over  the  inventions 
of  our  Remote  Ancestors,  so  Breasted  writes  enthusiastically  about  the 
discovery,  by  the  Egyptians,  of  the  art  of  writing.  This  discovery,  he 
says,  is  "more  important  than  all  the  battles  ever  fought  and  all  the 
constitutions  ever  devised^." 

While  Egypt  was  the  first  to  develop  highly  the  arts  of  peace,  its  evo- 
lution was,  nevertheless,  marked  by  internal  and  external  warfare.  The 
first  general  of  history,  the  greatest  of  Egyptian  conquerors,  the  Napo- 
leon of  Egypt,  was  Thutmose  III,  who,  about  1500  B.  C,  waged  years 
of  warfare  and  crushed  the  cities  and  kingdoms  of  Western  Asia,  solidi- 
fying them  into  an  empire.  At  the  same  time  his  war  fleet  carried  his 
power  to  the  iEgean,  and  one  of  his  generals  became  governor  of  the 
iEgean  Islands'. 

But  the  palm  for  the  first  and  highest  development  of  the  arts  of  war  is 
awarded  to  the  civilizations  built  on  the  banks  of  the  Euphrates  and  the 
Tigris.  War  was  the  constant  state  of  affairs  in  the  early  history  of  the 
Sumerians  from  about  3050  to  2750  B.C.*  And  most  bellicose  were  their 
successors,  the  Assyrians  whose  state  was  a  vast  military  machine, 
"more  terrible  than  any  mankind  had  ever  yet  seen."  The  Hittites  had 
introduced  iron  into  Assyria,  so  that  the  Assyrian  forces  were  the  first 
large  armies  equipped  with  weapons  of  iron.  "The  Assyrian  Empire, 
especially  in  its  great  military  organization,  marked  a  long  step  forward 
in  the  gradual  growth  of  the  idea  of  all-including  world-power,  which 
culminated  at  last  in  the  Roman  Empire."  And  it  was  the  warfare  of 
Assyria  that  roused  the  Hebrews  to  that  God-concept  which  "so  pro- 
foundly influenced  the  entire  later  history  of  mankind^." 

But  one  must  hurry  to  that  point  at  which  the  author  gives  one  of  the 
most  vivid  and  sweeping  views  of  world-history  that  it  seems  possible 
to  find.  He  limns  with  a  few  bold  strokes  thousands  of  years  of  bloody 
struggle  over  thousands  of  miles  of  territory.  He  says:  "The  history  of 
the  ancient  world,  as  we  are  now  to  follow  it,  was  largely  made  up  of  the 
struggle  between  this  southern  Semitic  line,  which  issued  from  the 
Southern  grasslands,  and  the  northern  Indo-European  line,  which  came 
forth  from  the  Northern  grasslands,  to  confront  the  older  civilizations 

represented  in  the  southern  line The  two  great  races  face  each  other 

across  the  Mediterranean  like  two  vast  armies  stretching  from  Western 

32 


War  and  Religion 


Asia  westward  to  the  Atlantic.  The  later  wars  between  Rome  and  Car- 
thage represent  some  of  the  operations  on  the  Semitic  left  wing;  while 
the  triumph  of  Persia  over  Chaldea  is  a  similar  outcome  on  the  Semitic 

right  wing The  result  of  the  long  conflict  was  the  complete  triumph 

of  our  ancestors,  the  Indo-European  line,  which  conquered  all  along  the 
center  and  both  wings  and  finally  gained  unchallenged  supremacy 
throughout  the  Mediterranean  world  under  the  Greeks  and  Romans. 
This  triumph  was  accompanied  by  a  long  struggle  for  the  mastery 
between  the  members  of  the  northern  line  themselves.  Among  them  the 
victory  moved  from  the  east  end  to  the  west  end  of  the  northern  line, 
as  first  the  Persians,  then  the  Greeks,  and  finally  the  Romans  gained  con- 
trol of  the  Mediterranean  and  Oriental  world®." 

The  gigantic  proportions  and  lengthy  duration  of  these  combats  com- 
pel one  to  pass  by  the  Hebrews*,  Hittites^,  and  yEgean  and  Greek 
world'" ".  The  important  thing  to  note  is  that  war  is  as  all  prevalent 
throughout  this,  the  greater  part  of  the  period  of  our  Immediate  Ances- 
tors, as  it  was  found  to  have  been  among  our  Remote  Ancestors.  The 
critical  question  concerns  the  role  of  religion  in  the  midst  of  this  contin- 
uous conflict.  The  religions,  therefore,  of  Egypt,  Babylonia,  Assyria,  Per- 
sia, Buddhist  India,  China  and  Japan  will  be  rapidly  reviewed  first. 
Then  will  follow  an  investigation  of  the  religious  beliefs  of  the  Greeks, 
Romans  and  Semites.  Finally,  for  this  period  of  our  Immediate  Ances- 
tors, Christianity  and  Islam  will  be  examined.  Of  course  it  must  be 
remembered  that  this  study  will  limit  the  observations  of  all  these  nations 
and  faiths  to  the  reaction  of  the  respective  religionists  to  war. 

Section  B — War  and  Religion  Among  the  Most  Ancient  of  Our  Immediate 
Ancestors.    Part  1 — The  Egyptians 

Prehistoric  Egyptian  life  lends  color  to  the  generalization  drawn  from 
the  remains  of  our  Remote  Ancestors  that  it  is  war  which  unearths  reli- 
gion, moulds  it  according  to  its  will,  and  puts  the  stamp  upon  it  that 
makes  it  current  for  human  circulation.  Breasted  in  his  "Development 
of  Religion  and  Thought  in  Ancient  Egypt"  seems  to  confirm  distinctly 
this  theory.  He  says:  "As  the  prehistoric  principalities,  after  many  cen- 
turies of  internal  conflict,  coalesced  to  form  a  united  state,  the  first  great 
national  organization  of  men  in  history  (about  3400  B.  C),  this  imposing 
fabric  of  the  state  made  a  profound  impression  upon  religion,  and  the 
forms  of  the  state  began  to  pass  over  into  the  world  of  the  gods .  . "  "As 
the  arena  of  thought  and  action  widened  from  national  limits  to  a  world 
of  imperial  scope,  when  the  Egyptian  state  extended  to  embrace  contig- 
uous Asia  and  Africa,  the  forces  of  imperial  power  continually  reacted 
upon  the  thought  and  religion  of  the  empire." 

Further  detailed  examination  shows  that  the  main  course  of  the  his- 
tory of  the  Egyptian  religion  has  to  do  with  the  rivalry  between  the 
great  sun  god  Re,  or  by  whatever  other  name  he  is  known,  and  the  great 
Nile  god  Osiris^.  The  sun  god  is  the  ally  and  protector  of  the  king,  who 

"hacks  up  for  him  all  the  strongholds  of  Asia "  The  god  is  a  kind  of 

celestial  reflection  of  the  earthly  Pharaoh.  "This  phenomenon,"  adds 
Breasted,  "  is,  of  course,  merely  a  highly  specialized  example  of  the  uni- 

33 


War  and  Religion 


versal  process  by  which  man  has  pictured  to  himself  his  god  with  the 
pigments  of  his  earthly  experience."  He  finds  the  Messianic  king  in 
Hebrew  thought  but  an  analogous  process^.  Moore  notes  in  a  similar 
manner  how  local  political  conditions  wrought  parallel  changes  in  the 
local  gods  "under  whose  banners.  .  .the  rulers  of  the  cantons.  .  .  .fought 
with  one  another  or  against  their  nominal  overlords*." 

Another  strong  link  binding  the  religious  thinking  of  our  Remote 
Ancestors  with  that  of  the  Egyptians  is  the  latter's  attitude  to  death. 
Breasted  asserts  that  there  never  was  a  people  among  whom  the  idea  of  a 
life  beyond  the  grave  held  such  a  prominent  place.  The  excavations  dis- 
closing the  prehistoric  communities  along  the  Nile  show  that  from  the 
fifth  millennium  B.  C.  these  people  must  have  had  an  advanced  belief  in 
the  future  life.  In  the  bottom  of  the  pits  which  these  folk  dug  in  the 
desert  gravel,  and  which  were  but  a  few  feet  in  depth,  were  found 
thousands  of  bodies  with  the  "feet  drawn  up  toward  the  chin  surrounded 
by  a  meager  equipment  of  pottery,  flint  implements,  stone  weapons,  and 
utensils'".  .  ."  The  theory  that  ceremonial  burial  was  accorded  first  and 
foremost  to  the  chieftain  and  leader  finds  some  support  in  Breasted's 
discussion  of  the  Pyramids.  In  fine,  he  says :  "The  great  pyramids  of  Gizeh 
represent  the  effort  of  the  titanic  energies  absorbing  all  the  resources 
of  a  great  state  as  they  converged  upon  one  supreme  endeavor  to  sheathe 
eternally  the  body  of  a  single  man,  the  head  of  the  state,  in  a  husk  of 
masonry  so  colossal  that  by  these  purely  material  means  the  royal  body 
might  defy  all  time  and  by  sheer  force  of  mechanical  supremacy  make 
conquest  of  immortality'."  A  discussion  of  the  "  Coffin  Texts^"  and  of  the 
"Book  of  the  Dead^"  follows,  but  as  its  trend  is  essentially  in  accord  with 
all  the  preceding,  no  further  mention  need  be  made  of  the  remarkable 
regard  for  the  dead  that  characterized  the  Egyptian  religion. 

Reference  has  been  made  already  to  the  expansion  of  Egypt  into  the 
first  stable  empire  in  history,  in  the  sixteenth  century  B.  C.  This  political 
growth  developed  the  god-idea  to  monotheistic  proportions.  Breasted 
sizes  up  tersely  the  situation  in  the  words :  "  Monotheism  is  but  imperial- 
ism in  religion^"."  Egypt  proved  the  truth  of  this  both  positively  and 
negatively.  The  short-lived  revolution  of  Ikhnaton  may  be  said  to  repre- 
sent the  climax  of  the  monotheistic  tendency,  built  as  it  was  upon  the 
vast  conquests  of  his  predecessors.  So  much  for  the  positive.  On  the 
other  hand,  with  the  decline  of  Egypt  from  the  thirteenth  century 
onward,  all  religious  zeal  ran  into  channels  of  an  ever  greater  increase  of 
mortuary  practices  and  to  sacerdotalism.  So  that  religion  in  Egypt 
became  not  only  the  tool  of  the  state  but  learnt  to  covet  kingly  power". 
Moore  gives  the  records  of  this  church  militant  in  Egypt  with  its  heredi- 
tary priesthood,  vast  estates  and  large  bodies  of  troops.  Finally  in  the 
year  1000  B.  C.  the  Theban  high-priest  who  had  been  the  ruler  of  the 
land,  boldly  set  aside  the  fiction  of  ruling  for  the  king  and  seated  himself 
upon  the  throne'^.  This  is  the  first  link  in  that  long  chain  of  evidence 
presented  by  history,  that  when  religion  secures  the  reins  of  government 
it  becomes  the  servitor  of  war  equally  as  much  as  when  the  laity  is  the 
head  of  the  state. 

These  facts  from  Egyptian  history  as  gleaned  from  the  prehistoric 
graves  with  their  implements  and  weapons  as  funeral  furniture;  as  read 

34 


War  and  Religion 


easily  from  the  gigantic  monuments  of  the  Pyramid  Age;  and  as  gener- 
ally noted  from  the  great  array  of  mortuary  practices,  and  from  the  evo- 
lution of  sacerdotahsm,  show  that  there  is  an  essential  connection 
between  war  and  religion  in  which  religion  is  secondary;  and  that  for 
Egypt,  this  connection  was  thoroughgoing''. 

As  the  development  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria  was  synchronous  with 
that  of  Egypt,  war  and  religion  will  be  briefly  investigated  in  these  lands. 

Part  2 — War  and  Religion  in  Babylonia  and  Assyria 

One  feels  increasingly  apologetic  for  taking  the  volumes  written  by 
erudite  scholars  to  pieces,  picking  out  a  few  sentences  and  summaries  for 
substantiating  the  main  ideas  presented  in  these  chapters.  Thus  Jas- 
trow's  searching  and  systematic  study  on  the  religion  of  Babylonia  and 
Assyria  contains  a  great  amount  of  evidence  of  very  special  value  for 
this  work;  but  not  only  will  very  much  of  it  have  to  be  omitted  for 
fear  of  wearying  repetition  and  for  the  sake  of  space,  but  even  that 
which  will  be  included  must  be  boiled  down  to  a  point  almost  un- 
palatable. 

Jastrow,  like  Breasted,  emphasizes  at  the  outset,  that  religion  is 
moulded  by  political  and  social  forces.  The  local  gods  of  the  Babylonian 
cities  grew  as  their  precincts  enlarged^  The  gods  En-Lil,  Marduk,  Nin- 
Girsu,  Nergal,  Nin-ib  became  either  Bel,  that  is  lord  par  excellence  with 
his  worship  spread  all  over  Babylonia;  or  a  warrior  deity  of  Bel,  and 
war  gods,  in  proportion  as  they  aided  the  battling  kings  to  secure  victory. 
Even  Shamash,  the  "god  of  day,"  the  most  continuously  popular  deity 
among  the  Babylonians  and  Assyrians,  and  essentially  a  beneficent  deity, 
puts  an  end  to  wickedness  and  destroys  enemies.  Of  course  he  does  this 
for  the  sake  of  righteousness,  to  make  the  weak  strong,  and  prevent  the 
strong  from  crushing  the  weak,  but  be  the  cause  what  it  will,  he  is  made 
to  serve  the  ends  of  war^.  For  both  the  Babylonians  and  Assyrians, 
Ishtar,  the  chief  goddess  is  essentially  a  deity  of  war  and  battle'*.  Marduk 
originally  a  solar  deity,  sloughs  this  natural  aspect,  when  he  is  elevated 
by  the  conqueror,  Hammurabi,  to  political  headship  as  the  great  lord  of 
the  city  and  empire  of  Babylonia^  ®.  An  examination  of  the  mythologies 
cannot  be  included  in  this  broad  survey  of  the  religions  of  the  past  and 
present,  otherwise  most  ample  material  could  be  found  in  the  mytholo- 
gies of  Egypt  and  Babylon  for  the  support  of  the  position  taken  in  these 
pages  on  the  relations  between  war  and  religion'. 

Assyria  corroborates  so  fully  this  contention  that  it  could  be  dismissed 
from  the  witness  stand  with  but  a  single  sentence.  Jastrow  puts  it 
briefly:  "One  receives  the  impression  that  in  Assyria  only  a  few  of  the 
gods  invoked  by  the  kings  at  the  side  of  Ashur  exert  any  real  influence 
on  the  lives  of  the  people;  and  such  as  do,  gain  in  favor  through  possess- 
ing in  some  measure  the  chief  attribute  that  distinguished  Ashur, — 
prowess  in  war^."  Thus  Ishtar  is  primarily  "the  lady  of  war,  who 
arranges  the  order  of  battle  and  encourages  her  favorites  to  fight^."  It 
is  extremely  worth  while  to  note  the  attitude  of  Tiglath  Pileser  I,  who 
was  a  great  and  ruthless  warrior.  He  invokes  the  aid  of  the  beneficent 
Shamash,  the  judge  of  heaven  and  earth,  "who  sees  the  king's  enemies, 

35 


War  and  Religion 


and  shatters  them  because  of  their  guilt."     Ramman  and  Marduk  also 
aid  the  Assyrian  hosts  to  victory'". 

But  these  mighty  warriors  had  not  only  lofty  ideals  of  righteousness; 
they  also  breathed  most  beautiful  prayers'*;  their  penetential  psalms 
touched  high  levels  of  religious  and  ethical  thought''^;  and  while  the 
Babylonians  led  in  this  spiritual  development,  the  Assyrians  adopted 
these  psalms  as  they  did  other  features  of  Babylonian  life  and  thought, 
"and  enriched  the  collection  by  productions  of  their  own,  which,  how- 
ever, follow  closely  the  Babylonian  models'^."  So  one  may  not  speak 
here  of  crudities,  as  one  is  so  apt  to  in  discussing  these  early  forms  of 
religion  as  manifested  in  Egypt  and  Babylon. 

Further  material  to  aid  the  present  argument  could  be  found  in  omen 
and  oracle  ritual";  in  the  idea  of  the  divine  right  of  kings'^;  in  the  sacred 
calendars'^;  and  in  the  legends".  But  this  will  all  be  passed  by  to  close 
this  part  with  a  sentence  on  the  attitude  to  death.  Jastrow  says  that 
there  are  two  remarkable  chapters  in  the  Old  Testament  which  illustrate 
the  popular  view  prevailing  in  Babylonia  as  to  the  condition  of  the  dead 
in  the  nether  world.  "The  prophets  Isaiah  and  Ezekiel  both  portray  the 
dead  as  having  the  same  form  they  possessed  while  alive.  The  kings  have 
their  crowns  on  their  heads;  the  warriors  lie  with  their  swords  girded 

about  them What  distinguished  the  dead  from  the  living  is  their 

inactivity"." 

Here  then  is  a  culture  reared  by  mighty  warrior  kings  who  regarded 
themselves  as  promoters  of  justice  and  lovers  of  righteousness.  The  incan- 
tation texts  denounce  hatred,  cheating,  using  false  measures,  removing 
boundaries,  adultery  and  insincerity.  The  Assyrian  monarch  emphasized 
the  fact  that  "he  established  ordinances  so  that  the  strong  should  do  no 
harm  to  the  weak"."  Yet  if  war  was  ever  all  important,  it  was  surely  so 
in  the  growth  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria.  Moore's  account  of  it  all 
reflects  the  same  spirit  in  his  treatment  of  the  religion  of  these  two  lands, 
as  that  just  presented  in  the  work  of  Jastrow^".  And  the  sum  of  it  all,  as 
far  as  the  relations  of  war  and  religion  are  concerned,  is  but  the  strongest 
kind  of  affirmation  of  the  conclusion  reached  from  the  preceding  study 
of  the  Egyptian  religion. 

Part  3 — The  Relations  of  War  and  Religion  in  Zoroasirianism 

From  Egypt,  Babylonia  and  Assyria,  it  might  seem  more  logical  to 
turn  now  to  the  Semitic,  Greek  and  Roman  world.  But  as  these  peoples 
exerted  the  most  powerful  influences  for  the  growth  of  present-day  Occi- 
dental life  and  thought,  it  was  thought  best  to  consider  them  as  a  whole 
in  the  section  immediately  preceding  that  dealing  with  Christianity  and 
Mohammedanism.  Further,  before  approaching  so  near  modernity,  it 
appeared  wise  to  consider  the  Oriental  nations  and  religions,  usually  if 
vaguely  held  to  be  saturated  with  pacifism  or  quietism. 

The  manifestations  of  Aryan  religious  thought  in  the  Orient  will  be 
traced  in  the  growth  and  spread  of  Zoroastrianism  rather  than  in  the 
religions  of  India,  which  with  the  exception  of  a  word  or  two  on  Bud- 
dhism, will  not  be  treated  of  in  this  study.  For  with  Moore,  one  must  feel 
that  Hinduism  is  such  a  "protean  phenomenon;    every  attempt  to 

36 


War  and  Religion 


describe  it  must  confine  itself  to  certain  salient  features,  but  in  so  doing 
runs  the  risk  of  making  an  impression  of  simplicity  and  unity  which  is 
widely  remote  from  the  truths"  Further,  any  discussion  of  this  subject 
involves  the  introduction  of  the  deeply  abstruse  speculations  of  the  Hindu 
religious  philosophies.  It  is,  of  course,  only  just  and  fair  to  render  every 
meed  of  praise  and  tribute  to  the  lofty  spiritual  thinking  of  India.  But 
Moore  emphatically  shows  that  such  highly  abstract  philosophies,  by 
their  very  nature,  could  appeal  to  limited  circles  only.  Whatever  dilution 
of  them  reached  the  populace  did  not  disturb  the  inherited  religions,  the 
gods  of  which  grew  like  other  gods,  through  the  victories  in  war  of  their 
adherents.  "...  the  Aryan  invasion  had  made  Indra  the  greatest  of  the 
gods  of  the  Rig-Veda^."  Indra  became  the  national  god  of  the  Aryans, 
in  their  wars  with  their  foes,  human  and  demonic,  not  as  the  mighty  god 
of  tempests,  but  as  the  heroic  destroyer  of  the  enemy'.  Latterly,  Civa 
is  the  claimant  upon  the  religious  attention  of  the  Hindus,  sharing  this 
honor  with  Vishnu.  Civa  is  wholly  of  the  pattern  of  the  warrior  god 
Indra;  Vishnu  is  more  civilized^  "The  rivalry  of  the  religions  of  Vishnu 
and  Civa  has  sometimes  led  to  violent  collisions,  but  in  the  present  they 
live  in  the  main  peaceably  side  by  side,  with  some  degree  of  mutual 
recognition."  Moore  regards  the  climatic  environment  and  the  condi- 
tions of  life  as  peculiarly  potent  in  the  evolution  of  Hinduism.  Moore 
passes  a  harsh  if  not  premature  judgment  on  India,  as  a  whole,  in  saying: 
"It  is  not  strange  that  a  people  who  thought  so  ill  of  the  world  should 
never  have  played  a  part  in  the  history  of  the  world,  nor  have  developed 
a  national  consciousness  in  any  other  form  than  antipathy  to  foreign 
masters^."  At  all  events  this  verdict  does  not  reveal  very  much  of  the 
spirit  of  quietism;  but  coupled  with  the  stamp  which  war  placed  upon 
Hinduism,  it  suggests  possibilities  of  some  active  role  that  India  can 
play  in  the  future.  If  it  does,  there  is  everything  in  the  religious  tradi- 
tion to  aid  the  cause. 

That  environmental  conditions  have  played  such  a  large  part  in  Hindu 
thought  is  usually  made  clear  by  contrasting  it  with  the  Iranian.  The 
latter  had  the  same  racial  inheritance  as  the  Aryan  group  that  conquered 
India.  But  while  a  luxurious  nature  softened  the  fiber  of  the  Aryan  in 
India,  bringing  him  to  lead  the  dreamy  life  of  speculative  philosophy,  the 
less  favored  lands  of  Iran  goaded  these  Aryans  to  evolve  from  the  one 
stock  of  religious  ideas  that  robust  dualism  of  Zoroastrianism,  together 
with  the  sturdy  qualities  needed  to  conquer  an  empire  and  especially  to 
organize  and  govern  it  "in  a  degree  matched  only  by  the  Roman,  whom 
in  other  respects  also  they  much  resemble."  "This  strenuous  and  militant 
type  was  not  first  impressed  upon  the  religion  by  the  Zoroastrian  reform; 
it  is  rather  a  characteristic  of  the  popular  religion  which  is  impressed 
upon  the  higher  faith®." 

M.  N.  Dhalla,  a  present-day  officiating  Zoroastrian  priest  gives 
naturally  a  sympathetic,  yet  at  the  same  time,  a  scientific  presentation 
of  his  faith  in  his  recently  published  "Zoroastrian  Theology."  He  finds 
that  Zoroaster's  faith  was  assured  a  following  when  the  king  of  kings  of 
Iran  and  his  consort  were  converted.  The  zealous  king  made  Zoroastri- 
anism a  church  militant.  "The  holy  wars  of  religion  against  Turan  and 
the  neighboring  countries  introduced  the  Avesta  and  the  sacred  Fire  into 

37 


War  and  Religion 


distant  lands'."  Dhalla  is  convinced  that  Zoroastrianism  possesses  all 
the  best  elements  making  for  a  world  creed.  But  at  best,  he  finds  that  it 
remained  only  a  national  religion.  He  thinks  that  in  addition  to  making 
mankind  holy  and  righteous,  a  reHgion  should  aim  to  make  mankind 
patriotic  and  heroic.  "Zoroaster  does  not  encourage  exaggerated 
unworldhness*'." 

The  dualism  that  is  the  essential  characteristic  of  Zoroastrianism, 
lends  itself  admirably  to  the  ends  of  war.  The  Druj,  or  Lying  and  Wick- 
edness, is  not  a  mere  negation  of  x\sha  or  Righteousness,  but  has  a  posi- 
tive existence.  Zoroaster  is  unsparing  and  unforgiving  in  his  crusade 
against  the  Kingdom  of  Druj.  The  ethics  of  retaliation  are  in  vogue.  The 
end  is  the  ultimate  victory  of  righteousness  which  is  the  goal  of  humanity". 

While  this  phraseology  is  reminiscent  of  Babylonian  and  Assyrian 
theology,  Moore  gives  the  corrective  here  that  Jastrow  applied  to  the 
other.  While  one  hears  much  talk  about  the  "holy  wars"  and  wars  for 
and  by  religion,  it  is  fairly  safe  to  assert  that  history  affords  no  instance 
in  which  the  real  cause  of  war  was  religion.  Religion  enters  to  bless  the 
cause  of  the  leaders  in  war.  Thus  what  Dhalla  found  to  be  a  holy  war, 
Moore  reduces  to  a  conflict  between  an  agricultural  civihzation  and  a 
nomadic  barbarism.  "...  .a  situation  (is  here  presented)  which  throws 
an  instructive  light  on  the  beginnings  of  Zoroastrianism^"."  He  finds 
further  that  Zoroastrianism,  like  Christianity  and  Mohammedanism 
and  most  other  rehgions,  is  intolerant;  "in  the  Gathas  believers  are 
exhorted  to  chastise  the  misbelievers  with  the  sword^^  .  ."  Later  this 
intolerance  was  shown  toward  Christianity;  but  Moore  sagely  adds 
that  "Political  considerations  also  had  a  good  deal  to  do  with  the  treat- 
ment of  Christians,  especially  after  the  Roman  Empire  became  Chris- 
tian'^." 

But  this  is  anticipating.  The  Persian  empire  builders  gave  fervent 
thanks  to  Ahura  Mazda  for  victories  secured.  Both  Darius  and  Xerxes 
attribute  all  their  success  over  the  enemy  to  the  all-wise  Ahura^'.  The 
Yazatas  and  Fravashis  are  in  many  instances  real  war  divinities.  Of  the 
Yazatas,  Mithra  is  the  most  prominent  figure.  He  measures  up  to  full 
Martian  proportions'^  '^;  indeed  this  very  Mithra  became  the  favorite 
deity  of  the  Roman  legions;  and  Mithraism  proved  a  formidable  foe  of 
(Christianity  until  the  end  of  the  fourth  century'®. 

Dhalla  gives  a  picture  of  the  Zoroastrian  paradise  in  which  "The 
beatified  souls  are  attired  richly, .  .  .  women  are  bedecked  with  jewelry 
and.  .warriors  with  golden  arms.  .  .  .""  Moore  speaks  of  the  Messian- 
ism  of  the  faith.  A  veritable  Armageddon  is  imagined  with  Turks, 
Arabs  and  Christians  making  a  reign  of  terror.  But  a  Messiah  will  be 
born  who  with  gods  and  heroes  on  his  side  will  destroy  the  heathen  and 
their  demon  allies.  "The  triumph  of  God  is  in  this  respect  more  complete 
than  in  Christianity,  which  leaves  hell  with  the  devil  and  his  angels  and 
the  wicked  in  torment  forever,  an  unconquered  realm  of  evil'^." 

While  these  excelling  teachings  of  Zoroastrianism,  which  bring  this 
faith  into  close  touch  with  the  religions  of  the  most  recent  of  our  Imme- 
diate Ancestors,  show  a  complexity  and  development  of  ethical  doctrine 
that  compares  favorably  with  present-day  morals,  it  must  be  equally 
evident  that  they  are  none  the  less  bound  up  with  war.  The  very  dualism 

38 


War  and  Religion 


of  this  Iranian  faith  constitutes  a  most  ready  and  pliant  doctrine  for 
warriors.  If  there  be  the  good  principle  and  the  evil  principle,  it  is  most 
easy  to  identify  oneself  with  the  good  principle  and  impute  the  possession 
of  evil  to  the  neighbor,  outsider  or  foreigner.  Zoroastrianism  illustrates 
likewise  the  subserviency  of  religion  to  war  throughout  the  entire  Persian 
ef)och. 

Part  Jf. — War  and  Religion  as  Reacted  to,  in  Buddhism 

Were  it  not  that  a  very  recent  book  by  A.  Coomaraswamy  on  "Buddha 
and  the  Gospel  of  Buddhism"  partook  more  of  the  spirit  of  the  theoretical 
and  also  of  the  missionary,  it  would  be  useful,  if  only  from  the  negative 
standpoint,  to  include  a  review  of  it  here.  For  to  a  degree,  it  confirms 
Moore's  estimate  of  the  peacefulness  of  Buddhist  teaching;  "nowhere 
else  is  gentleness  in  act  and  speech  so  exalted^"  Coomaraswamy  wrote 
his  book  in  the  midst  of  this  present-world  conflict.  He  is  sure  that  this 
dire  war  will  give  a  great  impetus  to  the  study  of  Buddhism-.  Its  mes- 
sage: "Victory  breeds  hatred,  for  the  conquered  is  unhappy^;"  must 
teach  mankind  the  futility  of  war.  But  mankind  did  not  have  to  wait 
for  Buddhism  for  this  lesson.  And  the  sequel  will  show  how  ineffective 
all  of  the  ideal  teachings  of  this  faith  have  been  to  eliminate  war.  On 
the  contrary,  Buddhism  has  followed  and  blessed  the  warriors  as  have 
other  religions. 

But  even  the  Buddhistic  interpretation  of  life  as  essentially  evil^;  its 
heavens  and  hells'^;  the  author's  jugglery  with  spiritualism^;  the  state  of 
Nirvana  realizable  only  after  death^;  the  surrender  of  the  ego^;  utter 
indifference  to  social  welfare^;  the  impractical  nature  of  the  whole 
system  with  consequent  concessions  to  the  great  majority  of  professing 
Buddhists",  a  point,  which  it  has  been  already  noted,  Moore  had  made 
against  these  speculative  philosophies;  direct  evidence  of  Buddhistic 
intolerance^^  ^'  '^ : — all  of  these  items  furnish  plenty  of  grist  for  a  fine 
grinding  of  the  question  as  to  the  inner  value  of  Buddhism  as  a  possible 
peace  factor  in  human  evolution.  The  Buddhist  writings  contain  most 
beautiful  sayings  against  hatred  and  revenge^^.  But  other  religions  had 
teachings  equally  as  noble.  Moore,  as  usual,  gives  a  clearer  explanation 
of  the  rise  of  this  faith.  Buddhism  did  not  recognize  rank  or  caste  in 
its  requirements  of  admission  into  the  Order^'.  This  at  once  introduces 
economic  and  social  considerations  to  explain  the  rapid  spread  of  this 
faith  in  a  land  such  as  India  where  caste  lines  have  ever  been  most  rigid. 
For  the  fundamental  law  for  the  Buddhist  monks,  the  Ten  Command- 
ments, were  practically  the  same  for  Brahmans  and  for  other  heretical 
sects  like  the  Jains^*. 

Nevertheless,  it  is  outside  of  India  that  Buddhism  can  best  be  studied 
as  a  living,  working  creed.  It  is  the  fact  and  not  the  theory  that  is  of 
present  interest.  So  one  must  turn  to  China  and  Japan  where  Buddhism 
numbers  millions  of  adherents,  to  obtain  a  real  estimate  of  this  profess- 
edly quietistic  faith. 

Part  5 — War  and  Religion  in  China 

China  did  not  need  to  import  any  doctrines  of  non-resistance.  It  was 
due  to  Buddhism's  ready  adaptability  to  the  prevailing  religious  system, 

39 


War  and  Religion 


that  it  gained  a  hold  on  the  people  of  the  land.  For  the  rest,  Moore's 
dry  remark  in  connection  with  this  phenomenal  spread  of  Buddha's  doc- 
trine gives  sufficient  explanation  of  its  gro\\i;h.  "...  it  is  impossible  to 
have  too  many  patrons  and  helpers  among  the  powers  above^" 

In  his  account  of  the  growth  of  the  Chinese  religion,  Moore  shows  the 
role  which  warfare  played  as  carried  on  by  the  invading  Chinese  against 
the  aborigines'^.  He  defines  the  religion  of  China  "as  a  union  of  nature 
worship  and  ancestor  worship^.  The  emperor  is  called  the  Son  of  Heaven 
and  is  the  religious  head  of  the  nation*.  Such  direct  unions  of  state  and 
church  afford  most  immediate  evidence  of  the  inferior  role  that  religion 
cannot  but  play  to  war.  It  is  true  that  the  teachings  of  Confucius  are 
beautiful  as  well  as  practical.  His  tomb  is  one  of  the  holiest  places  in 
China.  In  theory,  the  worship  accorded  the  Sage  is  for  the  sake  of 
emphasizing  the  supreme  value  of  moral  education^.  But  in  reality, 
the  Confucian  doctrine  of  loyalty  and  slavish  obedience  to  the  authori- 
ties is  the  more  comprehensible  reason.  While  Confucius  taught  the 
golden  rule  in  a  negative  form,  he  insisted  at  the  same  time  upon  the 
duty  of  blood-revenge^.  Instead  of  pacifism,  then,  in  China,  one  is  pre- 
pared to  find  the  same  relations  between  war  and  religion,  as  have  pre- 
vailed in  the  religions  already  reviewed.  And  Buddhism  in  China  is  no 
exception  to  this  rule. 

There  is  ample  material  for  anti-war  programs  in  the  teachings  of 
Moh-Tih  and  even  of  Mencius.  But  in  Lao-Tse,  an  elder  contemporary 
of  Confucius  one  can  find  the  most  genuine  if  not  sane  philosophy  of 
quietism,  that  all  history  seems  to  afford.  But  Moore,  with  both  eyes 
open  clearly  and  frankly  on  the  records  of  history,  says  of  the  Taoist 
doctrine  which  developed  from  Lao-Tse's  teachings :  "  It  is  obvious  that 
such  philosophy  made  no  appeal  to  the  masses  of  men;  its  adherents 
were  either  speculative  thinkers  of  mystical  tendency  or  contemplative 
recluses  such  as  existed  in  China  before  as  well  as  after  Lao-Tse.  It  was 
not  until  later,  and  after  great  changes,  that  Taoism  became  a  popular 
religion*." 

The  truth  of  this  judgment  passed  by  Moore  is  abundantly  illustrated 
by  J.  J.  M.  DeGroot  in  his  "Sectarianism  and  Religious  Persecution  in 
China,"  and  in  his  "Religion  in  China."  He  desires  to  explode  the  error 
that  China  is  a  land  of  most  remarkable  and  exemplary  tolerance.  He 
shows  how  Confucianism,  the  State  Religion,  destroyed  the  vitality  of  the 
Buddhist  branch  and  hindered  the  growth  of  Taoism^.  His  analysis  of 
the  dualism  in  the  Chinese  religion  analagous  to  the  Zoroastrian^";  of  the 
calendar  with  its  war  and  cannon  gods;  of  the  prevailing  system  of 
ancestor  worship";  the  bitterness  of  Confucian  oppostion  to  heresy;  and 
the  extended  notice  given  to  the  peace-destroying  doctrines  of  the  Fung- 
Shui^^  are  but  similar  items  of  evidence  in  showing  the  minor  part  of 
religion  as  against  that  of  war,  and  at  the  same  time  the  sanction  which 
religion  lends  to  war. 

DeGroot's  long  and  dreary  recital  of  sectarianism  and  religious  perse- 
cution in  China  goes  far  to  establish  his  claim  that  the  Chinese  state  was 
the  most  intolerant  and  most  persecuting  of  all  earthly  governments*^. 
The  banner  of  rebellion  was  raised  by  the  Buddhists,  goaded,  as  they 
were,  by  Confucian  fanaticism,  as  DeGroot  puts  it.    "...   the  history 

40 


War  and  Religion 


of  Buddha's  religion  under  the  Ming  dynasty  was  one  of  tears  and 
bloodshed"."  As  he  quotes  from  the  Chinese  official  "Law  Against 
Heresy  and  Sects"  he  is  moved  to  say  that  this  intolerance  "opens  our 
eyes  to  the  truth  that  even  in  the  Far  East  the  human  mind  works  in  the 
same  way  as  among  ourselves;  there,  as  here,  it  formulates  dogmas; 
there,  as  here,  notions  contrary  to  these  dogmas  spring  up;  and  so 
arises  "heresy."  There,  as  here,  "irrt  der  Mensch  so  lange  er  strebt;" 
there,  as  here,  in  former  ages,  differences  of  opinion  drives  him  to  vio- 
lence, and  the  predominant  party  oppresses  and  exterminates  other 
schools  of  thought^^." 

In  the  light  of  the  ideals  of  Buddhism,  it  is  curious  to  note  that  the 
Buddhist  sect  is  the  chief  object  of  persecution  and  is  regarded  as  the 
mightiest  rebel  power  in  the  land*^.  Christians  were  also  persecuted  until 
treaties  with  European  powers,  in  1858,  brought  relief".  Further  refer- 
ence to  this  bloody  tale  must  be  unnecessary^^.  And  one  may  not  digress 
to  note  a  strange  moral  or  two  which  the  author  draws  from  his  extended 
research. 

It  remains  to  conclude,  that  whatever  of  quietism  or  love  universal 
may  have  been  taught  in  China,  whether  by  a  native  genius  as  the  unique 
Lao-Tse,  or  derived  from  Buddhist  doctrine,  it  is  fair  to  say  that  as  far 
as  the  relations  of  war  and  religion  in  China  are  concerned,  there  is  sub- 
stantially no  diflFerence  from  all  that  has  preceded.  The  government  is 
omnipotent  and  uses  Confucianism  for  its  own  ends.  Granting  every 
virtue  to  Chinese  Buddhism,  there  is  no  evidence  to  show  that  quietist 
doctrines  prevailed.  Be  the  ground  for  fighting  the  loftiest  possible  in 
the  estimation  of  friend  and  apologist,  it  is  abundantly  evident  that  the 
Chinese  Buddhist  mixed  politics  and  religion  with  the  blood  of  war,  even 
as  did  the  government  which  aimed  to  suppress  all  heresy.  If  Buddhism 
in  China  does  not  make  this  overwhelmingly  clear.  Buddhism  in  Japan 
will  afford  more  than  enough  proof  to  convince  the  most  unwilling. 
However  high,  noble,  ideal,  pacific  or  godly  the  religious  doctrine  may 
be,  the  adherents  of  such  teachings  are  found  to  be  comparatively  as 
quarrelsome,  vindictive  and  warlike,  as  the  records  show  our  Remote 
Ancestors  to  have  been. 

Part  6 — War  and  Religion  in  Japan 

Moore  says  that  up  to  the  present  day,  there  are  few  in  Japan  who  are 
exclusive  Buddhists  or  exclusive  Shintoists:  "the  greater  part  seek  their 
welfare  by  both  ways'."  Shinto,  which  means  the  "way  of  the  (national) 
gods"  is  a  word  derived  from  China.  It  was  given  to  the  indigenous 
religion  of  Japan  in  the  sixth  century  to  distinguish  it  from  the  new  and 
foreign  Butsudo,  or  the  "way  of  Buddha^."  The  Shinto  deities  are  chiefly 
gods  of  nature,  the  sun-goddess  being  chief.  In  addition,  there  are  gods 
who  were  once  men:  rulers,  heroes  or  men  eminent  in  various  arts  and 
pursuits^.  W.  G.  Aston,  in  his  book  on  "Shinto"  refers  to  it  as  essen- 
tially a  religion  of  gratitude  and  love.  He  also  speaks  of  the  joyous 
character  of  the  faith^.  He  states,  however,  that  bad  men  as  well  as 
good  might  be  deified,  such  as  rebels  and  robbers,  citing  the  case  "in  our 
own  day  (of)  the  murderer  of  Mori,  the  Minister  of  Education."    He 

41 


War  and  Religion 


further  informs  one  that  there  were  buried  with  the  more  eminent  dead, 
food,  weapons,  ornaments,  vessels,  pottery  and  other  valuables*.  All 
deities  are  prayed  to,  among  other  things,  for  the  blessing  of  warlike 
qualities^. 

As  Shinto  developed,  there  grew  the  need  of  some  visible  token  of  the 
presence  of  the  god.  Such  a  token  is  known  as  a  "shintai"  or  god-body. 
It  varies  nuich  in  form,  but  is  frequently  a  mirror,  a  sword,  or  bow  and 
arrows^  ^.  One  of  the  most  conspicuous  of  the  later  Shinto  deities  is  the 
war  god  Hachiman.  In  1039  he  was  given  a  high  place  in  the  state  reli- 
gion^''. Among  the  offerings  deposited  at  the  shrines  of  the  gods  are 
swords,  spears,  shields,  etc."  The  official  liturgy,  called  norito,  includes 
petitions  for  the  suppression  of  rebellion,  the  repulse  of  invasion  and 
success  for  the  imperial  arms'-. 

Aston's  account  of  the  relations  between  Shinto  and  Buddhism''  will 
be  made  to  yield  to  that  of  Moore's.  The  latter  refers  to  the  Buddhist 
influence  in  bringing  the  medieval  warriors  to  worship  Hachiman  as  the 
war  god.  From  the  eighth  century  on,  the  Buddhist  monks  aspired  to 
rulership  as  did  the  Egyptian  priests  noted  before.  The  monasteries 
themselves  were  at  strife  with  one  another  settling  their  "controversies 
over  points  of  doctrine  or  more  worldly  issues  by  force  and  arms."  By 
the  close  of  the  eleventh  century  the  monasteries  had  large  armies  and 
private  wars  were  frequent.  "In  the  civil  wars  of  the  period  the  armies 
of  the  church  took  an  active  part,  and  on  more  than  one  field  proved 
themselves  as  hard  fighters  and  as  ruthless  victors  as  the  doughtiest 
knights'^."  By  the  sixteenth  century,  the  emperors  had  all  they  could 
do  to  suppress  the  church  militant.  This  accomplished,  Buddhism  was 
found  most  useful  in  the  complete  suppression  of  Christianity'* ''.  The 
eighteenth  century  witnessed  a  deepening  of  patriotism  and  with  it  a 
revival  of  pure  Shinto.  Motoori,  who  died  at  the  beginning  of  the  nine- 
teenth century  was  a  protagonist  in  the  movement.  But  Aston  feels 
sure  that  the  present  belongs  to  Buddhism,  with  Christianity  looming  on 
the  horizon  as  a  great  rival  in  the  future.  (References  18  to  21.)  One 
must  recall  the  recent  wars  of  Japan  with  China  and  Russia,  and  its 
present  part  in  the  prevailing  world  war.  Then  in  the  light  of  all  these 
bloody  struggles,  in  which  to  no  small  extent,  the  Buddhist  monk  doflFed 
his  religious  garb  to  don  the  soldier's  accouterments,  the  actual,  living 
judgment  on  Buddhism  must  be  passed.  It  is  found  to  follow  the  trail 
of  war  as  consistently  as  all  other  religions  have  done. 

Section  B — Part  1 — War  and  Religion  Among  the  Greeks 

In  "The  Higher  Aspects  of  the  Greek  Religion,"  L.  R.  Farnell  has  a 
sentence  which  makes  easy  the  great  leap  from  Japan  to  Greece.  He 
says:  "We  have  had  strong  proof  from  Japan  of  the  social  value  of 
ancestor- worship  and  of  the  ennobling  dead;  and  we  need  not  doubt 
that  the  prospect  of  such  posthumous  honors  would  make  the  strongest 
appeal  to  the  self-love  of  the  Hellene  and  would  afford  a  powerful  motive 
to  conduct'."  This  sentence  from  the  heart  of  the  book  brings  the  Greek 
religionist  close  to  the  followers  of  the  various  gods  already  described; 
and  strikes  a  most  responsive  chord  in  harmony  with  the  main  theme  of 

42 


War  and  lleligion 


this  study,  more  especially,  with  that  part  dealing  with  the  origin  of 
religion  among  our  Remote  Ancestors. 

For  it  was  the  mystery  hovering  about  the  chieftain  as  a  living  genius 
so  necessary  for  the  survival  of  the  group,  and  the  potency  of  the  memory 
of  his  mysterious  influence  as  revived  by  the  special  sepulture  accorded 
his  otherwise  useless  dead  body,  that  played  some  decisive  part  in  creat- 
ing the  religious  attitude.  The  exigencies  of  the  struggles  in  war  wrought 
greatly  from  the  remote  beginnings  when  megalithic  monuments  were 
common,  as  well  as  among  Contemporary  Ancestors  with  their  Mana 
concepts,  for  the  growth  of  religious  ideas.  Later,  the  gods  with  their 
martial  spirit  plucked  violently  at  the  heartstrings  of  the  marching  hosts 
of  Egypt,  Babylonia,  Assyria,  Persia,  India,  China  and  Japan,  so  that 
men  exalted  these  gods,  in  their  sacred  hymns,  from  puny  city  guardians 
to  imperial  deities.  That  the  spirits  of  these  deities  became  large  enough 
to  cover  the  mighty  walled  boundaries  of  the  vast  domains  conquered 
with  their  help,  makes  it  evident  that  whatever  else  worked  for  religion's 
spread,  war  most  certainly  did.  For  war  found  in  religion  such  an  elec- 
tric medium  for  fusing  swiftly  into  a  glowing  mass  the  individual  human 
beings,  that  it  could  make,  at  white  heat,  horde  oppose  horde,  tribe 
tribe,  nation  nation,  and  empire  empire.  This  has  been  illustrated  by  all 
peoples  from  the  men  of  the  Old  Stone  Age  to  the  Japanese.  The  more 
abundant  records  of  the  nearer  of  our  Immediate  Ancestors,  beginning 
with  the  Greeks,  bring  this  ceaseless  interaction  between  war  and  reli- 
gion, with  war  having  the  master  hand,  down  to  the  very  present 
day. 

Greece  may  include  for  the  purposes  of  this  study  the  testimony  of  the 
Cretan  or  Minoan  civilization.  Ample  justification  for  this  is  found  in 
J.  E.  Harrison's  "Themis^ '."  Moore  also  noted  the  Cretan  connections 
of  the  infant  Zeus^.  Harrison  speculates  on  Greek  origins  along  the  lines 
of  Durkheim's  interpretation  of  the  religion  of  the  Australian  Aborigines^. 
There  is  direct  quotation  of  phrases  that  represent  primitive  gods,  to  a 
large  extent,  as  collective  enthusiasms^.  Of  immediate  value  is  the 
author's  interpretation  of  the  hoplolatry  of  the  Greeks.  A  weapon  does 
not,  of  necessity,  owe  its  sanctity  to  a  god,  but  a  case  is  cited  in  which 
a  god  grew  out  of  a  weapon'.    So  much  for  origins. 

Difficulties  similar  to  those  encountered  in  reading  Jevons  were  found 
in  the  material  offered  by  Farnell  in  his  work  on  "The  Higher  Aspects 
of  the  Greek  Religion^."  He  appears  at  first  to  yield,  but  grudgingly, 
recognition  to  the  power  of  war  as  against  that  of  religion^  ^*'.  But  once 
well  in  his  book,  it  is  found  that  "Neither  in  Greek  ethics  nor  Greek 
religion  can  we  say  that  courage  apart  from  its  patriotic  exercise  on  the 
battlefield  receives  any  recognition ..."  The  closest  association  of  a  noble 
bravery  "with  religion  was  attained  by  the  practice  of  awarding  heroic 
honors  to  the  patriot  who  fought  and  died  bravely  for  his  country"". 
Other  tendencies  of  similar  purport  are  noted^^;  and  again  be  it  observed 
that  the  Greek's  social  creed  showed  extreme  zeal  for  the  morality  and 
religion  associated  with  his  family  hearth  and  family  tomb.  Farnell 
closes  with  this  thought  on  Homer:  "...  a  poet  who  in  defiance  of  omens 
and  superstitions  could  utter  the  great  phrase,  'Best  of  omens  is  it  to 
fight  for  one's  native  land,'  was  capable  of  shaking  off  the  fetters  of  con- 

43 


War  and  Religion 


ventional  tribal  thought  and  of  penetrating  to  the  heart  of  things  moral 
and  religious'*. " 

Moore's  bird's-eye  view  of  the  entire  Greek  development  makes 
most  clear  the  relations  of  war  and  religion  among  these  intellectual  giants 
of  the  past.  Thus  Zeus,  the  chief  god,  had  as  one  of  his  oldest  titles  Her- 
keios,  the  Zeus  of  the  Fort'*.  Apollo  is  in  part  a  helper  and  defender  in 
the  fight.  Hermes,  closely  related  to  Apollo,  is,  among  other  of  his  activi- 
ties, the  patron  of  thieves,  traders  and  orators".  A  deity  for  such  pur- 
poses reminds  one  not  only  of  the  Japanese  custom  noted  above,  but  also 
of  the  religious  professions  of  the  Thugs  of  India.  This  is  an  extreme 
illustration  of  Haddon's  phrase:  "As  are  men,  so  are  gods."  Moore  has 
an  observation  to  the  same  effect". 

Athena  is  the  warrior  maiden  representing  the  superior  mind  and  skill 
in  the  art  of  war  rather  than  brute  force.  Ares  is  the  warrior  god  who 
loves  fighting  for  its  own  sake  and  was  universally  worshipped.  Hephais- 
tos  is  the  special  patron  of  smiths  and  armorers'^.  It  is  war  that 
brought  the  principal  Greek  deities  together  for  the  campaign  against 
Troy*".  Similarly,  it  was  the  social,  economic  and  political  changes  in 
Greece  that  affected  profoundly  the  Greek  religion'*. 

A  word  or  two  may  be  devoted  to  the  Greek  philosophers^".  While  they 
were  far  from  being  pacifists,  they  were  assailed  by  the  people,  especially 
when  war  threatened,  because  they  undermined  faith  in  the  gods.  When 
Greece  was  delivered  from  the  Persian  invader,  the  gods  became  more 
than  ever  beloved  and  "Athens  especially  in  the  meridian  of  her  short 
century  of  glory  became  a  very  city  of  the  gods^'."  Moore  brands  this 
persecution  of  the  Athenian  state,  directed  against  the  philosophers  and 
scientists,  as  the  work  of  "malevolent  orthodoxy;"  adding:  "The 
inquisitores  haereticae  pravitatis  have  been  the  blind  tools  of  a  tragic 
irony"." 

That  these  great  thinkers  were  not  opposed  to  war  as  such,  may  be 
seen  in  the  life  of  a  Socrates  who  had  conscientious  scruples,  not  against 
performing  all  his  duties  as  a  citizen  in  war  and  peace,  but  against  taking 
an  active  part  in  politics^'.  Plato's  "Republic"  may  deprecate  teaching 
the  Homeric  tales  of  the  fighting  gods  to  children^*.  But  highly  curious 
is  the  method  to  be  used  for  instilling  into  the  children  those  qualities 
that  make  for  the  brave,  successful  w  arrior".  As  for  the  rules  of  warfare 
— Socrates  is  made  to  say  that  "our  citizens  ought  to  adopt  these  rules 
in  conduct  towards  their  adversaries,  while  I  would  have  them  behave 
to  barbarians  as  the  Greeks  now  behave  to  one  another^*."  The  state 
must  be  ruled  by  such  "kings  who  have  shown  the  greatest  ability  in 
philosophy  and  the  greatest  aptitude  for  war^^  2"." 

Whether  one  investigates,  therefore,  the  popular  religion  of  Greece, 
or  the  works  of  its  profound  thinkers,  the  arbitrament  of  war  is  a  decisive 
factor  for  the  faith  and  logic  of  that  remarkable  people  who,  though  few 
in  numbers,  were  yet  so  influential  in  their  own  and  succeeding  times. 
In  turning  to  Rome,  one  may  question  the  necessity  of  devoting  any- 
thing but  passing  attention  to  its  history.  Its  powerful  soldier  hosts 
marched  victoriously  from  the  wilds  of  Britain  and  Gaul  and  Germany 
to  distant  Egypt  and  Parthia  with  the  blessings  of  their  gods.  The  spell 
of  the  Caesars,  and  the  phrase:  "The  Holy  Roman  Empire,"  are  so  near 

44 


War  and  Religion 


and  so  lilting  on  the  tongue,  that  as  brief  as  possible  an  account  of  the 
relations  of  war  and  religion  among  the  Romans  ought  to  suffice. 

Section  B,  Part  2 — War  and  Religion  Among  the  Romans 

It  was  stated  in  the  introduction  that  no  books  were  found  among  the 
many  that  treated  of  war  and  religion  that  dealt  with  the  question  from 
the  scientific  standpoint,  except  two  small  volumes;  and  that  these  were 
limited  to  a  consideration  of  a  corollary  of  this  subject.  Both  of  these 
books  deal  with  the  religion  of  the  Roman  army — the  one  bearing  directly 
on  this  topic,  the  other  concerned  with  a  theory  of  religion  in  general. 
Renel  takes  for  granted  the  war  basis  for  the  origin  and  growth  of  Rome, 
and  the  military  cults  connected  therewith^  Von  Domaszewski  records 
with  most  painstaking  details  the  methods  used  in  having  the  Roman 
religion  accompany  the  soldiers  in  all  of  their  campaigns^ '.  He  shows 
how  the  fates  of  certain  divinities  depended  upon  the  outcome  of  the 
military  expedition^.  This  material  needing  but  little  more  than  a  refer- 
ence or  two  to  it,  ought  to  enable  one  to  dismiss  Rome  forthwith.  But 
the  Roman  spirit  is  still  so  prevalent  in  the  world  that  more  extended 
notice  of  its  wars  and  its  religion  is  called  for.  Fowler  it  is,  who  says, 
that  "to  this  day  the  Catholic  Church  in  Italy  retains  in  a  thinly  dis- 
guised form  many  of  the  religious  practices  of  the  Roman  people^." 

Jupiter  protected  the  state  in  war  as  well  as  in  peace.  As  war  with 
neighbors  was  almost  as  regular  a  part  of  the  year's  business  as  sowing 
and  reaping,  the  gods  of  battle.  Mars  and  Quirinus,  were  very  prominent 
in  the  pantheon*.  Again  Moore  comments  on  the  power  of  the  state  in 
making  the  gods'.  The  calendar  recorded  festivals  and  holy  days  marking 
the  chief  occupations  of  the  people  as  husbandry  and  war*.  Disasters, 
especially  war,  caused  the  introduction  of  foreign  deities'.  Generals 
had  haruspices  on  their  staflF  to  help  in  the  campaign^".  The  climax  of 
all  this  testimony  may  be  found  in  the  emperor  cult"  ". 

The  rapid  spread  of  the  Mithra  cult  in  and  by  the  Roman  army  has 
been  mentioned  before^^.  Moore  makes  very  vivid  the  story  of  the 
opposition  of  the  Christian  Fathers  to  this  Oriental  cult  and  their  zeal  in 
destroying  the  Mithraea".  Cumont  shows  how  the  military  monarchies 
of  the  East  "placed  in  the  forefront  the  warriors  who  died  sword  in  hand 
in  defence  of  their  country.  . ;"  quoting  Horace  to  the  effect  that  to  such 
heroes  the  gates  of  heaven  are  opened^^. 

In  Fowler's  "The  Religious  Experience  of  the  Roman  People,"  an 
interesting  suggestion  is  made  in  connection  with  the  evolution  of  the 
familia  and  the  pagus.  He  connects  the  latter  term  with  "pax,"  making 
the  pagus  a  territory  within  the  bounds  of  which  there  is  pax^*  "  ^'.  The 
earliest  religious  document  of  Rome,  the  calendar  of  Numa,  reflects  the 
change  of  the  Roman  people  from  an  agricultural  to  a  highly  organized 
political  and  military  City-state^'  20  21 22 

It  is  of  supreme  importance  to  find  that  these  essentially  militaristic 
Romans  regarded  themselves  and  their  ancestors  as  "religiosissimi  mor- 
tales."  Thus  Cicero  says  that  the  Romans  as  compared  with  other 
peoples  were  far  superior  "in  religione,  id  est  cultu."  In  one  of  his  ora- 
tions, he  says :   "  We  have  overcome  all  the  nations  of  the  world,  because 

45 


War  and  Religion 


we  have  realized  that  the  world  is  directed  and  governed  by  the  will  of 
the  gods."  In  the  age  of  Augustus,  Dionysus  asserted  that  "one  needed 
to  know  the  pietas  of  the  Romans  in  order  to  understand  their  wonderful 
career  of  conquest^'." 

Mere  mention  of  the  art  of  divination,  which  extended  in  practice  into 
the  Christian  period,  having  been  countenanced,  as  most  always  for 
war  purposes  by  a  Bishop  of  Rome,  is  all  that  should  be  necessary  here. 
The  attitude  of  the  Romans  to  the  gods  after  the  defeat  of  the  Cartha- 
ginians was  entirely  similar  to  that  of  the  Athenians  when  they  were 
saved  from  the  Persian  menace^*.  The  name  of  Polybius  should  at  least 
be  given  because  his  theory  that  religion  was  invented  for  political  objects 
is  a  crude,  cynical  anticipation  of  the  ends  of  this  entire  study^'^.  Fowler 
devotes  a  large  part  of  the  close  of  his  book  to  Vergil's  ^Eneid.  The  pietas 
of  his  hero  is  proved  by  the  success  that  came  to  his  arms.  As  the 
animadversions  of  Lactantius  on  this  kind  of  pietas  in  contrast  to  the 
Christian's  peace  interpretation  of  pietas  will  be  included  generally  in 
a  following  chapter,  no  further  notice  of  it  here  is  needed-^.  Fowler,  in 
a  more  recent  book  on  "Roman  Ideas  of  Deity"  gives  but  parallel 
evidence  of  all  that  is  contained  in  the  "Religious  Experience^*." 

It  is  plain,  then,  that  this  account  of  war  and  religion  among  the 
Romans  is  most  convincingly  similar  to  all  that  has  gone  before.  It  was 
not  the  call  of  religion  that  incited  the  Roman  generals  and  their  cohorts 
to  pursue  their  policy  of  world  conquest.  If  the  anthropomorphism  is 
pardoned,  it  may  be  said  that  it  was  war  that  beckoned  on  these  well- 
drilled  armies;  and  the  worth  of  the  gods  was  tested  by  the  victories 
brought  to  the  arms  of  the  Caesars. 

The  closing  part  of  this  chapter  will  give  a  brief  outline  of  the  bearing 
of  the  Semites,  in  their  reactions  to  war  and  religion,  on  this  study.  For 
together  with  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  the  Semitic  ideas  play  a  promi- 
nent part  in  the  Christian  and  Mohammedan  development. 

Section  B,  Part  3 — War  and  Religion  Among  the  Semites 

W.  R.  Smith,  in  his  "Religion  of  the  Semites"  repeats  the  more  than 
familiar  refrain  that  religion  did  not  exist  for  the  saving  of  souls  "but 
for  the  preservation  and  welfare  of  society^"  Another  commonplace,  as 
far  as  this  study  is  concerned,  is  the  incessant  warfare  of  ancient  times. 
The  small  Semitic  groups  were  separated  from  each  other  by  continuous 
feuds.  The  local  god  of  the  clan  or  town  was  an  enemy  to  the  enemies  of 
his  votaries.  Smith  says  that  the  Old  Testament  testifies  abundantly  to 
the  truth  of  this.  He  cites  the  history  of  David  and  of  Ruth;  phrases  such 
as  the  "enemies  of  Jehovah;"  and  that  the  ark  of  the  Lord  was  taken  into 
battle  by  the  Israelites^.  His  conclusion  is  that  religion  did  not  lead  the 
way  to  raise  morality  to  higher  ideals  but  was  content  to  follow  or  even 
to  lag  behind*. 

The  Semitic  communities  were  chiefly  interested  to  secure  from  their 
god  three  things:  help  against  their  enemies,  counsel  by  oracles  or 
soothsayers  in  matters  of  national  difficulty,  and  a  sentence  of  justice 
when  a  case  was  too  hard  for  human  decision.  Smith  finds  also,  that 
what  is  described  as  a  tendency  toward  ethical  monotheism,  is  in  the 

46 


War  and  Religion 


main,  nothing  more  than  an  alliance  of  religion  with  monarchy.  While 
the  prophets  rose  above  this,  religion  in  practice  did  not  follow  in  the 
steps  of  these  spiritual  giants.  So  that  the  case  here  is  analogous  to  the 
situation  in  other  lands  where  a  Socrates  or  Buddha  or  Lao-Tse  spoke 
most  lofty  sentiments  but  the  stream  of  life  was  undisturbed  by  them^  *. 
And  while  the  prophets  gave  to  the  world  the  Messianic  visions  of  peace, 
it  is  a  matter  for  debate  as  to  what  their  immediate  attitude  to  war  was. 
The  doctrine  that  God  uses  the  mighty  conquering  nations  to  crush  a 
people  for  its  sins  is  also  prophetic.  After  all,  however,  this  again  is 
theory,  and  it  is  the  fact  that  is  now  to  be  sought. 

In  view  of  the  indirect  attention  to  be  given  the  Jewish  interpretation 
in  the  succeeding  cliapters,  it  may  be  considered  vain  to  dwell  on  the 
din  of  warfare  that  fills  so  much  of  the  Bible,  or  to  spend  any  time  on  the 
speculations  or  aphorisms  of  the  rabbis.  (See  references  6,  7  8  and  9.) 
A.  Cronbach  finds  that  Judaism  affords  nowhere  an  anti-militaristic 
interpretation  of  the  Biblical  passages  favoring  world  peace.  .  .  "On  the 
whole  Judaism  appears  rather  to  disagree  than  to  agree  with  Socialism  in 
this  particular."  Judaism  is  entirely  "too  nationalistic  to  be  in  sympathy 
with  internationalism  or  to  be  anything  but  indifferent  to  world  peace." 
This  is  the  verdict  of  Jew  ish  history  despite  the  fact  that  there  is  a  wealth 
of  beautiful  maxims  and  teachings  on  peace^°. 

This  completes  the  second  section  of  this  chapter  that  deals  with  war 
and  religion  among  our  Immediate  Ancestors.  Beginning  with  the 
Egyptians,  and  observing  in  turn  the  Babylonians  and  Assyrians,  the 
Persians,  Hindus,  Chinese  and  Japanese,  the  Greeks,  Romans  and 
Semites,  the  general  testimony  yielded  abundant  proof  to  establish  war 
as  the  primary  factor,  holding  religion  fast  in  its  machinery  as  a  most 
energetic  and  faithful  aid  to  weave  the  bloody  garment  which  humanity 
has  draped  about  itself. 

The  closing  section  of  this  chapter  will  deal  with  the  Mohammedan 
and  most  extensively  with  the  Christian  groups,  for  they  have  practically 
dominated  the  stage  of  history  from  the  fall  of  Rome  to  the  present  day. 
In  fact,  the  relations  between  the  groups  professing  these  two  religions, 
have  followed  closely  the  magnificently  sweeping  view,  given  by  Breasted 
at  the  beginning  of  this  chapter,  of  the  mighty  battle  line  stretching 
along  either  side  of  the  Mediterranean.  Warfare  has  been  all  but  con- 
tinuous for  these  sixteen  centuries  within  these  groups  and  between 
them.  This  period  will  be  treated  then  as  a  unit. 

Section  C — War  and  Religion  Among  Christian  and  Mohammedan 

Peoples 

Because  these  sixteen  hundred  years  of  history  to  be  surveyed  are 
such  an  intimate  part  of  the  life  of  the  Western  nations,  one  is  tempted  to 
accord  considerably  more  space  to  them  than  has  been  granted  the  pre- 
ceding peoples.  But  when  all  is  said  and  done,  the  great  amount  of 
literature  on  the  subject  can  and  must  be  reduced  to  simplest,  narrow 
proportions  so  as  not  to  destroy  the  balance  of  these  pages  and  to  avoid 
too  much  wearisome  repetition.  To  facilitate  this  process,  the  Cambridge 
Medieval  History  and  the  Cambridge  Modern  History  will  be  used 

47 


War  and  Religion 


almost  exclusively  in  this  section  to  show  the  attitude  of  the  Christian 
and  the  Mohammedan  to  war  and  religion. 

The  Greek  and  Roman  parts  of  the  preceding  section  are  brought  well 
into  the  heart  of  the  Christian  evolution  in  noting  that  "the  greatest 
power  of  the  world — that  Eastern  Roman  Empire ....  carried  down  the 
old  Graeco-Roman  civilization  almost  to  the  end  of  the  Middle  Ages^" 
The  outstanding  figure  of  this  Byzantine  Empire  is  Constantine.  The 
great  question  he  had  to  face  was  with  reference  to  the  position  to  be 
assumed  to  the  rising  power  of  the  Christians.  This  was  the  immediate 
concern  of  practical  politics  at  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century. 
Passing  note  only  may  be  taken  of  the  story  of  the  "Shining  Cross"  with 
its  words  "Hoc  Vince"  that  have  played  so  large  a  part  in  militant 
Christianity^.  With  all  due  regard  for  the  noble  character  of  Constantine, 
and  the  lofty  faith  and  morals  of  the  Christians,  it  was  a  matter  of  expe- 
diency and  not  the  avowal  of  some  divine  aim  that  linked  the  causes  of 
the  Eastern  Empire  and  Christianity,  with  Christianity  in  the  minor  role. 
For  Constantine  handled  all  the  difficult  sides  of  the  question  with  such 
great  skill,  that  he  not  only  "made  the  Christians  thoroughly  loyal,  but 
won  the  active  support  of  the  churches,  and  obtained  such  influence  over 
the  bishops,  that  they  seemed  almost  willing  to  sink  into  a  department  of 
the  State^."  The  best  evidence  for  this  is  seen  in  the  conduct  of  the  oecu- 
menical council  which  the  great  emperor  convoked.  Constantine  wanted 
the  Nicaean  Council,  assembled  in  325,  to  eliminate  the  theological  dis- 
putes that  threatened  Christian  unity.  He  threw  his  influence  into  the 
sessions  to  make  decisions  unanimous  rather  than  to  turn  the  representa- 
tives one  way  or  the  other.  If  there  was  uniformity  in  religion,  the 
Church  could  then  be  more  useful  to  the  State.  For  his  labors  to  these 
ends,  he  was  buried  in  the  cathedral  of  the  Twelve  Apostles;  and  the 
Greek  Church  to  this  day  calls  him  "Isapostolos" — equal  to  the  Apostles*. 

One  could  devote  much  space  to  these  factional  struggles  that  marked 
the  early  days  of  the  Church.  The  Arianist,  or  Donatist,  or  others, 
opposed  and  were  opposed  by  the  Church  Catholic  not  merely  with 
spiritual  weapons.  But  after  all,  these  quarrels  were  only  by-products 
of  the  long-drawn-out  bloody  struggles  between  the  Teutonic  Tribes  and 
the  Imperial  forces  of  the  Eastern  Empire.  The  growth  of  the  hierarchy 
in  the  Church  of  Rome^;  the  factional  fights  of  the  Roman  Bishops  for 
place  and  power®,  and  the  political  currents  that  turned  men  to  Rome  and 
away  from  Jerusalem^  cannot  detain  one  now.  Of  more  pressing  impor- 
tance are  the  relations  of  the  Church  with  the  Goths,  Franks,  Vandals, 
and  Teutons,  and  the  battles  of  these  latter  with  the  Altaian  Asiatic 
hordes  that  swept  into  Europe.  Europe  of  the  fourth  and  fifth  century 
is  all  turmoil  and  warfare.  It  presents  a  panorama  of  imperial  ambitions, 
tribal  groupings  and  shiftings,  ceaseless  enmity  between  the  Church  and 
all  it  regarded  as  heretic.  Policies  of  state  and  religion  are  inextricably 
tangled  but  it  was  the  lure  of  dominance  that  led  men  on.  Both  Emperor, 
Ecclesiastic  and  even  so-called  barbarian  held  in  the  left  hand  the  Bible 
which  contained  many  a  vision  of  godly  peace  and  love;  but  in  the  right 
hand  was  the  sword.  That  is,  war  led  as  the  primary  factor  and  religion 
seconded  war  throughout.  "The  influence  of  the  Empire  upon  the  internal 
and  external  structure  of  the  Church  had  been  felt  from  the  first 

48 


War  and  Religion 


The  bargain  proposed  by  Nestorius  to  Theodosius  II,  "  Give  me  the  world 
free  from  heretics  and  I  will  give  thee  heaven,"  was  in  a  fair  way  of  ful- 
fillment." These  foundations  of  European  thought  and  action  were  con- 
sistently built  upon  by  succeeding  generations  up  to  this  very  period  of 
Contemporaries.    (See  references  8  to  13.) 

Accordingly  it  is  no  surprise  to  find  Justinian,  in  the  sixth  century,  the 
great  representative  of  what  has  been  called  "Caesaropapism."  He 
realized  the  political  importance  of  an  agreement  with  the  Papacy.  He 
issued,  therefore,  the  severest  laws  against  heretics.  "Religious  intolerance 
was  transformed  into  a  public  virtue.'*"  This  career  of  Justinian  in  the 
East  was  matched  by  that  of  Clovis  in  the  West.  Clovis  perceived  the 
strength  he  would  gain  by  embracing  Christianity,  for  the  Bishops 
helped  him  not  only  in  his  warfare  "against  the  heathen  tribes  but  also 
against  the  barbarians  who  adhered  to  the  Arian  heresy'^." 

It  should  not  be  difl5cult  to  imagine  what  a  perfect  maelstrom  of 
blood  would  ensue  if  these  martial-religious  rapids  of  Europe  were  to  be 
caught  in  the  whirl  of  another  warrior  group,  with  a  radically  different 
religion  accompanying  it,  as  it  foamed  in  battle.  That  was  what  hap- 
pened when  the  followers  of  Mahomet  appeared  upon  the  scene  at  the 
end  of  the  sixth  century,  and  in  mighty  floods  during  the  seventh  and 
succeeding  centuries. 

It  is  said  that  Mahomet  rose  above  the  concept  of  an  ethical  code 
based  on  tribal  patriotism.  He  emphasized  "the  universal  obligations  of 
morality,  and  above  all  the  duty  of  forgiving  injuries  instead  of  avenging 
them'^"  He  recognized  the  ancient  principle  of  blood-revenge  but  tried 
to  confine  it  within  narrow  limits.  He  did  not  take  part  in  the  fighting 
but  "remained  in  a  small  hut  which  had  been  erected  for  him,  praying 
with  passionate  fervor  and  trembling  violently."  One  of  his  regulations 
was  that  all  Moslems  capable  of  bearing  arms  might  under  certain  cir- 
cumstances be  required  to  serve  as  soldiers^^. 

In  a  short  time  he  had  subjugated  the  whole  of  Arabia,  and  then  in  the 
flush  of  his  power,  he  looked  beyond  the  Arabian  world.  In  629,  "Islam 
for  the  first  time  came  into  conflict  with  the  great  Christian  power 
against  which  it  was  destined  to  struggle  with  scarcely  any  intermission, 
for  a  period  of  eight  centuries'*." 

This  struggle  represents  another  phase  of  the  age-long  warfare  between 
the  men  of  the  southern  grasslands,  as  Islam  spread  along  the  southern 
shore  of  the  Mediterranean,  and  the  Christian  populations  along  the 
northern  littoral.  This  struggle  was  not  for  the  sake  of  religion,  but  again 
it  was  religion  abetting  the  ends  of  the  expanding  Saracens  and  Teutons, 
whose  movements  "form  the  basis  of  the  history  of  the  Middle  Ages." 
It  was  not  Christianity  nor  even  the  Teuton,  but  internecine  strife  in 
the  young  Arabian  empire  that  led  to  its  defeat.  Nor  was  it  religion  that 
drove  the  Saracens  forward,  but  "hunger  and  avarice."  The  function  of 
religion  was  to  supply  "the  essential  unity  and  central  power.  Expansion 
of  the  Saracen's  religion  both  in  point  of  time  and  in  itself  can  only  be 
regarded  as  of  minor  import  and  rather  as  a  political  necessity*"."  And 
a  contrast  drawn  between  the  followers  of  Christianity  and  those  of 
Mohammedanism,  leaves  a  balance,  as  far  as  their  actions  are  concerned, 
in  favor  of  neither'^'. 

49 


War  and  Religion 


Turning  to  Northern  Europe,  one  may  hurry  by  Celtic  and  Germanic 
heathenism  with  its  war  gods,  ValhoU,  Valkyries,  Vikings  and  megalithic 
monuments.  The  evidence  they  bring  has  been  abundantly  if  indirectly, 
treated  in  the  preceding  chapters^^. 

Of  more  moment  are  the  relations  of  Charles  the  Great  and  the  Papacy, 
While  this  entire  narrative  reveals  again  the  subordinate  position  of 
Christianity,  it  is  most  striking  to  see  the  subjection  of  the  Pope  to 
Charles  even  in  matters  of  Church  doctrine.  The  Holy  Father  is  merely 
expected  to  support  the  royal  work  by  his  prayers.  Charles  is  styled: 
"The  Representative  of  God  who  has  to  protect  and  govern  all  the  mem- 
bers of  God,  Lord  and  Father,  King  and  Priest,  the  Leader  and  Guide  of 
all  Christians."  In  stating  the  significance  of  Charles  for  the  history  of 
the  world,  it  is  important  to  read  that  it  consisted  in  his  transferring  of 
the  theocratic  idea  of  absolute  sovereignty  from  the  sphere  of  the  Roman 
Curia  to  the  Prankish  State.  "He  prepared  the  way  for  the  social  insti- 
tution peculiar  to  the  Middle  Ages,  and  at  the  same  time  opened  the 
source  of  unavoidable  wars^^."  It  is  not  an  exaggeration  to  say  that  prac- 
tically every  page  of  this  ponderous  volume,  more  especially  the  chapters 
dealing  with  the  development  of  the  Empire  of  Charles,  its  dissolution 
into  the  feudal  system,  the  growth  of  the  papacy,  the  overwhelming  of 
the  Eastern  Empire  by  the  Mohammedan  power,  and  the  great  split  of 
the  Church  into  the  Eastern  or  Greek  Rite  as  against  the  Western,  Roman 
or  Catholic  Rite:  every  page  yields  proof  for  the  substantiation  of  the 
central  ideas  of  this  study  on  war  and  religion.  To  abbreviate  it  all,  one 
short  sentence  may  be  included  from  the  closing  chapter  of  this  second 
volume  of  the  Cambridge  Medieval  History.  "  More  and  more  the  divi- 
sions of  the  Church  were  becoming  tokens  of  national  rather  than  reli- 
gious sympathy  2*." 

This  anomalous  position  of  the  Church  is  portrayed  again  and  again 
throughout  the  twelve  books  of  the  Cambridge  Modern  History.  Its 
opening  generalization  deals  with  the  great  distinction  of  the  modern 
world  as  being  "its  frank  recognition  of  nationality,  and  all  that  it 
involves."  And  the  starting  point  of  modern  history  is  "the  plain  issue 
of  a  competition  between  nations."  In  the  large, therefore,  modern  history 
should  furnish  overwhelming  evidence  of  the  vital  importance  which 
religion  was  to  these  national  governments,  for  warfare  has  been  prac- 
tically incessant  throughout  this  modern  period^^. 

The  discoveries  resulting  from  the  eflForts  of  the  intrepid  voyagers  who 
sailed  the  seas  at  the  end  of  the  fifteenth  and  beginning  of  the  sixteenth 
centuries,  gave  Europe  visions  of  dazzling  wealth'®.  Utopian  dreams 
that  were  comparatively  idealistic,  and  wider  visions  of  world  domina- 
tion, alike  filled  men's  minds".  But  the  lure  of  power  exerted  the  greater 
force  as  the  modern  era  advanced  on  its  way. 

If  the  feverish  materialism  with  which  the  discovery  of  the  New  World 
inoculated  men  is  not  lost  sight  of,  one  is  prepared  to  hear  with  equanim- 
ity that  the  great  ocean-going  Genoese  "were  accustomed  to  dealings 
with  the  Ottomans:  they  were  the  first  Christian  powers  west  of  the 
Adriatic  that  had  made  a  treaty  with  them,  and  they  had  not  scrupled  to 
use  the  alliance  of  the  infidels  against  their  fellow-Christians."  As  for 
Venice,  "her  first  thought  was  not  to  recover  the  bulwark  of  Christendom 

50 


War  and  Religion 


from  the  hands  of  the  Muslim,  but  to  preserve  her  own  commercial  privi- 
leges under  the  rule  of  the  infidel  sovereign^^." 

This  directs  attention  to  the  southern  grass  lands,  to  watch  the  trium- 
phal course  of  Islam  near  to  the  heart  of  Europe.  As  internecine  war 
among  the  Muslims  had  afforded  Europe  a  breathing  spell  which  the 
European  nations  had  used  to  fight  among  themselves,  so  now  the  chain 
of  events  connected  with  the  irrevocable  break  between  Rome  and  Luther 
gave  the  Muslims  an  opportunity  for  successful  incursions  northward. 
Luther,  taking  his  cue  in  all  probability  from  ancient  prophetic  doctrine, 
declared  that  the  invading  Turk  was  a  visitation  of  God  upon  the 
Papacy.  To  resist  the  Turk,  therefore,  was  to  resist  God.  But  some  years 
later,  when  the  infidel  directly  menaced  Germany,  Luther  agreed  to  war 
against  the  Turks.  He  was  somewhat  embarrassed  to  explain  away  his 
previous  utterances-^.  Lslam  was  more  consistently  militaristic  than 
Luther.  The  code  of  Ibrahim  enjoins  the  conquest  of  unbelievers  who 
must  be  "converted  to  Islam,  subjected  to  tribute,  or  destroyed  by  the 
sword*"." 

The  kaleidoscopic  turn  of  events  does  not  permit  one  to  be  detained 
for  any  length  of  time  at  any  point.  The  clash  of  arms  attracts  attention, 
now  here,  now^  there.  "Greed,  ambition,  the  lust  of  battle,  the  interests 
of  dynasties,  such  are  the  forces  that  seem  to  rule  the  fate  of  Italy  and 
Europe.  Yet  amidst  this  chaos  of  blind  and  soulless  strife  the  scheme  and 
equilibrium  of  the  western  world  is  gradually  taking  shape"." 

If  time  and  space  do  not  permit  a  close  inspection  of  all  this  turmoil 
from  which  the  nations  were  born,  it  can  hardly  be  expected  that  indi- 
viduals could  arise  so  far  above  the  melee  as  to  claim  even  momentary 
attention.  For  this  reason  Savonarola's  life  cannot  be  considered  though 
there  is  much  in  it  of  value  for  this  study'-.  But  Machiavelli  mirrors,  in 
his  works,  so  much  of  the  thought  and  methods  that  form  the  basis  of 
modern  history,  that  a  word  or  two  cannot  but  be  devoted  to  him. 

Machiavelli  was  convinced  that  human  nature  was  essentially  depraved 
and  that  imitation  rather  than  initiative  was  the  rule  of  life.  He  believed, 
"like  Bacon,  that  wars  are  necessary  as  a  national  tonic,  peace  is  dis- 
rupting and  enervating; war  and  fear  produce  unity."    At  the  same 

time,  Machiavelli  firmly  believed  in  religion.  The  Church  was  to  be  the 
great  helpmate  of  the  state.  Any  community  which  lost  or  misdirected 
the  religious  sentiment  greatly  weakened  itself  and  "imperiled  its  own 
existence."  The  State  was  the  be-all  and  end-all  of  existence.  The  art  of 
government  was  not  a  matter  of  right  or  wrong  but  the  welfare  and  con- 
tentment of  the  majority  of  the  inhabitants.  As  the  State  was  for  all,  so 
all  must  be  for  the  State,  "...  where  the  bare  salvation  of  the  mother- 
land was  at  stake,  there  no  consideration  of  justice  or  injustice  can  find  a 
place,  nor  any  of  mercy  or  cruelty,  or  of  honor  or  disgrace;  every  scruple 
must  be  set  aside,  and  that  plan  followed  which  saves  her  life  and  main- 
tains her  liberty''." 

The  events  transpiring  in  Europe  in  the  time  of  Machiavelli  proved 
that  his  "Prince"  was  not  a  monstrosity  of  the  imagination,  but  a  reflec- 
tion of  actualities,  if  not  a  somewhat  pale  one  at  that.  The  Papal  Tem- 
poral power  by  no  means  set  the  pace  for  cruelty  and  rapacity.  Whatever 
its  original  association  with  the  Inquisition,  this  mighty  engine  against 

51 


War  and  Religion 


lieresy  was  after  all  "an  eccelsiastical  instrument  in  the  hands  of  the  civil 
I)ower^*."  Again  it  was  the  poUtical  power,  with  its  incessant  warring 
throughout  this  modern  era,  that  made  possible  the  formulation  of  such 
doctrines  as  Machiavelli  enunciated.  Such  theorists  then  as  Machiavelli, 
Erasmus  and  Grotius  must  be  left  by  the  wayside  for  an  inspection  of  the 
grim  chronicles  of  the  Reformation. 

The  Reformation  is  generally  regarded  as  wholly  and  entirely  a  religious 
movement. 

But  the  verdict  of  history  will  not  have  it  so.  For  while  it  is  bewildering 
to  trace  the  currents  and  counter-currents  of  the  turbulent  days  of  Luther, 
it  is  stated  that  "the  motives,  both  remote  and  proximate,  which  led  to 
the  Lutheran  revolt,  were  largely  secular  rather  than  spiritual."  Indeed 
it  is  affirmed  that  the  religious  changes  were  incidental;  "they  were  not 
the  object  sought  but  the  means  for  attaining  that  object'*  '*." 

In  the  first  place  the  Church  had  become  thoroughly  secularized. 
Further,  the  sale  of  indulgences  represented  in  its  final  analysis  an  eco- 
nomic oppression  of  the  masses.  It  is  said  to  be  reasonable  to  conclude 
that  "in  its  essence  the  Reformation  was  due  more  largely  to  financial  than 
to  religious  considerations^^."  But  the  most  bitter  antagonism  was  aroused 
by  the  power  which  the  Church  exercised  of  "demanding  a  tithe  of  all 
ecclesiastical  revenue  whenever  money  was  needed  under  the  pretext, 
generally,  of  carrying  on  the  war  with  the  infidel."  Finally,  "the  world 
has  rarely  seen  a  more  debased  standard  of  morality  than  that  which 
prevailed  in  Italy  in  the  closing  years  of  the  Middle  Ages."  WTien  Cardinal 
Borgia,  as  Vice  Chancellor,  was  reproved  for  openly  selling  pardons  for 
crime,  he  replied,  "that  God  desires  not  the  death  of  the  sinners,  but  that 
they  should  pay  and  live^^." 

It  matters  little,  however,  as  far  as  the  object  sought  in  these  pages  is 
concerned,  whether  the  religious  or  secular  element  is  emphasized  in  the 
genesis  of  the  Reformation.  The  thing  that  stands  out  most  clearly  is 
that  the  men  who  were  most  vehement  in  their  religious  professions  were 
at  the  same  time  the  most  cruelly  bitter  in  their  warfare.  A  writer  in  the 
second  volume  of  "The  Cambridge  Modern  History"  thinks  that  while 
the  "main  defect  in  the  earlier  histories  of  the  Reformation  has  been  the 
neglect  of  the  secular  sides  of  the  movement,  it  is  possible  that  more  recent 
historians  have  been  apt  to  ignore  the  religious  element  which  was  a  real 
power''."  This  is  perhaps  the  strongest  statement  found,  in  this  monu- 
mental work,  that  pleads  for  the  recognition  of  the  true  power  of  religion. 
Since  it  is  such  an  exception,  it  may  be  looked  upon  rather  as  symptomatic 
of  the  traditional  feeling  that  yearns  to  find  the  ideals  of  religions 
actualized  intensively  in  the  life  of  humanity,  but  pathetically  fails  in 
the  search. 

For  the  succeeding  record  shows  all-abundantly  how  secondary  was 
the  role  which  religion  played  throughout  the  Reformation.  Luther's 
reversal  of  policy,  noted  before  in  connection  with  the  Mohammedan 
invasion,  could  be  further  illustrated  in  his  varying  attitude  to  the  con- 
stituted authorities  versus  the  masses.  It  is  said  that  he  virtually  saved 
the  Reformation  by  deserting  the  cause  of  the  peasants  and  allying  him- 
self with  the  triumphant  princes*". 

During  the  decade  following  tlie  Peasants'  Revolt,  numerous  sectaries 

52 


War  and  Religion 


arose  that  repudiated  Luther's  views,  denouncing  more  especially  the 
dependence  of  the  Lutheran  Church  upon  the  State.  They  withdrew  from 
participation  in  worldly  affairs;  and  some,  anticipating  the  Quakers, 
refused  to  bear  arms.  "  Many  were  beheaded  in  Saxony  with  the  express 
approbation  of  Luther,  who  regarded  their  heroism  in  the  face  of  death 
as  proof  of  diabolic  possessions^"  In  lieu  of  giving  the  details  concerning 
these  sectaries,  the  next  chapter  will  contain  a  sketch  of  the  Quakers. 
Enough  it  is  to  say  here  that  this  drab  narrative,  showing  both  the 
robust  strength  of  Luther  and  his  weakness,  is  all  confirmatory  of  the 
main  contention.  There  is  practically  no  room  left  to  argue  that  religion 
took  the  lead  in  these  stirring  events.  It  appeared  rather  as  a  very  sorry 
second  to  the  State  in  asserting  the  duty  of  rendering  unto  Caesar  the 
things  of  Caesar.  The  sectaries  that  survived  this  bloody,  intolerant  age 
did  so  in  proportion  as  they  became,  slowly,  "respectable  creeds^^." 
The  upshot  of  it  all  may  be  reduced  to  the  generalization  that  "in  the 
sixteenth  century  every  movement  tended  to  assume  a  theological  garb, 
and  the  rich  naturally  favored  conservative  forms  of  religion,  while  the 
poor  adopted  novel  doctrines^'." 

If  it  be  granted  that  the  Reformation  had  such  an  animus,  such  a 
spirit  behind  it,  one  need  not  follow  closely,  in  this  study,  the  dreary  and 
weary  lengths  of  this  great  upheaval  through  Switzerland,  France,  the 
Netherlands,  England  and  elsewhere.  ".  .  .Europe  was  doomed  to  be  the 
battlefield  of  contending  principles.  The  sword  alone  could  be  the  arbi- 
ter^." It  matters  little  how  much  this  dread  sentence  prepares  one  for 
the  reading  of  the  blood-curdling  narrative;  the  awful  events  themselves 
leave  the  investigator  speechless  with  the  horror  of  it  all.  History 
affords  no  more  sordid  tale  of  intriguing  religion  and  Machiavellian  poli- 
tics than  that  which  describes  the  few  remaining  centuries  from  the  time 
of  the  Reformation  until  the  present  day.  For  some,  there  may  be  found 
a  crumb  of  comfort  in  the  dictum  that  "The  Renaissance  was  not  neces- 
sarily secular  and  classical — it  might  be  and  often  was  both  religious  and 
Christian;  nor  was  the  Reformation  essentially  religious  and  moral — 
it  might  be  and  often  was  political  and  secular"**." 

"The  Wars  of  Religion"  is  the  significant  title  of  the  third  volume  of 
the  Cambridge  Modern  History.  But  a  word  of  preface  affords  a  com- 
mentary on  this  title  which  makes  it  only  too  evident  that  the  wars  were 
not  of,  by  or  for  religion,  but  were  the  play  of  dynastic  ambitions  in 
which  religion  was  used  as  a  faithful  ally^*. 

This  is  proved  first  and  most  dramatically  by  the  St.  Bartholomew 
massacres'*^  *^.  These  massacres  left  France  a  bloody  legacy.  During  the 
succeeding  years,  the  "picture  of  demoralization  could  hardly  be  matched 
in  the  records  of  any  period ;  .  ..  .  nor  was  there  much  to  choose  between 
Catholics  and  Huguenots,  though  of  the  few  serious-minded  men  who 
have  left  any  record,  the  majority  are  perhaps  to  be  found  among  either 
the  Protestants  or  the  Politiques*'."  Montaigne,  the  contemporary  wit- 
ness of  those  debased  times,  remarked:  "Pick  out  from  the  Catholic 
army  all  the  men  who  are  actuated  either  by  a  pure  zeal  for  religion  or 
by  loyalty  to  their  country  or  their  Prince,  and  you  will  not  find  enough 
to  form  one  complete  company*"." 

For  the  sake  of  brevity  one  may  dismiss  the  highly  interesting  and 

S3 


War  and  Religion 


valuable  testimony  on  the  course  of  the  Reformation  in  Poland  in  order 
to  dwell  a  little  longer  on  the  larger,  more  spectacular  phases  of  the 
struggle^*. 

One  turns,  therefore,  to  the  greater  issues  and  to  the  continent-encir- 
cling view  of  Breasted,  to  watch  again  the  Ottoman  plot  and  fight  his  way 
into  the  north  with  direct  co-operation  of  the  north.  In  1536,  France 
made  a  treaty  of  alliance  with  Turkey.  Scandalous  as  this  was  to  the 
times,  "it  would  have  been  infinitely  greater  had  it  been  known,  or  even 
suspected,  that  Solyman's  siege  of  Vienna  was  the  result,  as  the  Grand 
Vezir  Ibrahim  revealed  to  Ferdinand's  ambassador,  of  an  appeal  to  the 
Sultan  from  Francis,  his  mother  Louise  of  Savoy,  and  Clement  VII,  for 
help  against  the  Emperor."  The  conclusion  drawn  was  that  there  was 
little  to  choose  between  Turk  and  Christian  when  the  virtues  and  vices 
of  both  were  weighed  in  the  balance^^.  This  judgment  is  made  in  the  full 
light  of  the  admission  that  "The  Ottoman  Empire  was  a  military  State;" 
having  as  its  mission  "the  spread  of  Islam  by  fire  and  sword^ .  . "  To  pass 
from  such  an  agreement  between  Christian  and  Turk  to  discuss  Spain's 
Invincible  Armada  would  be  in  the  nature  of  anti-climax.  For  here  it  is 
Catholic  against  Protestant,  but  withal,  both  Christians;  whereas  in  the 
other  it  was  Mohammedan  linked  with  Christian  against  Christian"  ". 

The  solution  of  these  tangled  series  of  events  is  found  in  the  theories  of 
Machiavelli.  While  his  name  "became  a  byword  in  Europe  for  all  that 
was  unscrupulous  and  dishonest  in  politics,.  .  .  his  maxims  are  those 
which  have  governed  the  practice  of  statesmen  in  general  for  the  last 
three  hundred  years.  Machiavelli  it  may  be  noted,  knows  nothing  of 
chivalry,  and  even  less  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  Do  to  others,  not 
as  you  would  they  should  do  to  you,  but  as  you  suspect  they  would 
like  to  do  to  you,  is  his  principle  of  government."  "The  Church  which 
presently  condemned  Machiavelli 's  writings  showed  itself  an  adept  in  his 
methods.  That  the  end  justifies  the  means,  and  that  the  prudent  ruler 
will  seek  to  be  feared  rather  than  loved,  were  maxims  in  favor  no  less 
with  the  spiritual  than  with  the  temporal  powers."  As  for  the  Church,  it 
may  be  noted  that  in  the  institution  of  the  Congregations,  of  which  there 
were  fifteen,  one,  the  first  was  that  of  the  Inquisition  or  the  Holy  Office; 
and  another  was  "The  Congregation  for  the  navy  which  saw  to  the  con- 
struction and  armament  of  vessels  ordered  by  the  Pope  and  to  the  securi- 
ity  of  the  seashore ..."  As  for  the  State,  the  ambitious  policies  of  Philip 
"had  opened  the  eyes  of  the  most  infatuated  Catholics  to  the  fact  that 
notwithstanding  his  real  devotion,  religion  was  with  him  only  a  means  for 
the  establishment  of  his  political  supremacy  in  Europe '•*" 

All  of  these  facts  in  the  history  of  war  and  religion  cannot  but  form 
uniform  links  with  the  preceding  parts,  and  so  make  a  section  of  that  long 
chain  of  evidence  which  stretches  far  back  into  the  time  when  man  un- 
consciously made  records  of  his  deeds  in  the  stone  weapons  and  imple- 
ments he  found  or  fashioned.  A  fitting  nexus  in  this  chain  was  wrought 
by  the  proud  achievements  of  the  pyramid  builders  on  the  Nile  and  of  the 
men  who  reared  the  hanging  gardens  on  the  Euphrates.  The  scenes  would 
appear  to  shift  radically  with  the  advent  of  such  leaders  of  the  type  of 
Moses,  Zoroaster,  the  Jewish  Prophets,  Lao-Tse,  Confucius,  Buddha, 
Jesus  and  Mohammed,  all  of  whom  gave  teachings  of  ethical  import;  and 

54 


War  and  Religion 


in  many  instances,  with  frequent  and  direct  emphasis  against  war,  though 
not  constantly,  consistently  and  intransigeantly  so.  But  withal,  the 
teachings  of  these  master  minds  were  used  continually  by  their  followers 
to  fan  the  flames  from  which  were  forged  greater  chains  to  belt  the  mighty 
nations  and  empires  that  went  forth  to  battle  to  keep  intact  or  extend 
their  frontiers  because  they  were  assailed  by,  or  felt  impelled  by  whatever 
reason,  to  assail  their  neighbors.  The  bloody  warfare  of  the  Dark  and 
Middle  Ages  of  Europe  and  of  the  Mohammedan  world  that  has  filled 
this  section,  showed  how  religion  gladly  devoted  its  energies  to  the  cam- 
paigns carried  on  with  never-ceasing  fury.  And  the  iron  of  battle 
in  the  seventeenth,  eighteenth  and  nineteenth  centuries  fashioned 
identical  parts  for  this  chain  that  either  has  kept  bound  all  peoples  in 
its  unbreakable  shackles;  or,  to  follow  the  interpretation  of  another 
school  of  thought,  the  chain  which  humanity  has  felt  bound  ever  to  hold 
aloft  as  the  symbol  of  its  freedom,  despite  its  crushing  weight  of  stone  and 
iron,  inspired  by  that  mysterious  power  variously  called  upon  in  the 
remote  and  immediate  past,  and  generally  known  in  the  present,  as  God, 

Granting  it  is  clear  that  the  Reformation  made  for  the  breaking  up  of 
the  European  continent  into  jealous  nationalist  groups  led  by  ambitious 
dynasties"  with  the  consequent  exaltation  of  power  as  the  basis  of  the 
modern  State**,  one  may  neglect  here  further  mention  of  the  unremitting 
warfare  of  kings  and  emperors,  of  French  Revolution  and  Napoleonic 
conquest.  With  all  due  allowances  made  for  the  influence  of  high  ideals, 
ennobling  thoughts,  and  what  are  regarded  as  the  best  ethical,  religious 
and  spiritual  values,  it  is  most  evident  that  if  a  nation  decided  to  make 
war,  its  ideas  or  ideals  in  so  doing  were  found  consonant  w^th  the  various 
religions  of  the  peoples  composing  that  nation.  In  no  less  fervent  degree, 
did  the  very  same  religionists  in  the  country  attacked,  find  fullest  reali- 
zation of  their  hopes  and  faiths  in  the  cause  of  their  own  lands,  which  had 
been  invaded.  Churches  of  the  same  denominations  in  all  countries  used 
the  same  prayer-books  and  hymns  and  rituals  to  lend  ardor  to  the  men 
who  fought  for  their  country.  Whether  Church  and  State  were  divided 
or  not,  the  result  was  invariably  the  same.  Force  was  the  ultimate 
sanction;  and  all  other  agencies  had  to  lend  their  sanctions  to  force. 
Religion,  as  one  of  those  agencies  seems  to  have  followed,  therefore,  what 
appears  to  be  a  law  as  immutable  as  that  of  gravitation,  in  its  unfailing 
support  of  war.  For  up  to  the  present  point  in  this  study,  as  long  as 
man  has  been  identified  as  such  on  this  earth,  he  has  been  found  to  be  a 
fighter;  and  what  developed  into  no  mean  aid  as  part  of  his  warring  equip- 
ment, has  been  this  strange,  mysterious,  psychological  power  of  religion, 
that  assured  him  of  his  working,  of  his  fighting  in  harmony  with  the 
power,  the  mystery  that  is  at  the  heart  of  this  universe. 

A  very  vivid  illustration  of  this  relationship  between  war  and  religion 
that  should  constitute  a  most  striking  close  of  this  section  devoted  to 
our  Immediate  Ancestors  may  be  found  in  the  history  of  the  great  Ameri- 
can Civil  War.  The  Methodist  Book  Concern  published,  in  1912,  a  work 
called  "The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and  the  Civil  War."  In  his 
preface,  the  author  disclaims  any  object  of  glorifying  the  Church  "because 
of  the  important  part  she  took  in  the  Civil  War,  but  it  was  to  tell  in  a 
scientific  manner  just  what  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  taken  as  a 


War  and  Religion 


typical  example  of  the  other  Churches  did  in  aiding  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment to  bring  to  a  successful  close  the  War  of  the  Rebellion.  The  thesis 
of  this  study  is  to  show  the  importance  of  the  Churches  as  an  aid  to  the 
Government  during  the  Civil  War"  «»  "." 

Unfortunately  the  book  is  not  completely  scientific  for  it  does  not 
show  as  fully  in  the  case  of  the  South  how  the  Churches  there  supported 
the  cause  of  the  Confederacy  as  it  shows  how  the  Churches  North  upheld 
the  Union.  Slight  compensation  for  this  lack  may  be  found  in  the  impar- 
tial way  in  which  is  traced  the  evolution  of  the  northern  churches  from 
opposition  to  abolition  of  slavery  to  espousal  of  it^^  ®'  ". 

Hardly  could  a  more  perfect  instance  of  the  loyalty  of  religious  groups 
to  the  established  authorities  be  cited  than  that  afforded  by  the  Civil 
War.  Just  because  the  issues  were  so  very  decidedly  and  clearly  drawn, 
this  fierce  struggle  was  most  illustrative  of  the  typical  attitude  to  war 
and  religion.  Whether  the  accent  be  placed  on  the  question  of  slavery 
or  on  the  more  theoretical  one  of  States'  rights,  the  very  same  churches 
in  different  sections  of  the  country  took  diametrically  opposite  sides. 
They  found  in  their  same  prayer-books,  and  above  all,  in  one  and  the 
same  Bible,  divine  sanction  for  the  support  they  gave  to  their  leaders  and 
armies  drawn  up  for  battle.  Warfare  was  to  be  the  arbiter. 

The  book  contains  a  copy  of  the  written  reply  which  Lincoln  made  to 
a  delegation  from  the  General  Conference  which  presented  an  address 
to  him.  Lincoln  lauded  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  above  all 
others.  He  closed  his  reply  with  the  words:  "God  bless  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church!  Bless  all  the  Churches!  And  blessed  be  God,  who  in 
this  great  trial  giveth  us  the  Churches,    (Signed)  A.  Lincoln'^." 

When  the  war  ended,  the  religious  bodies  remained  split  into  Churches 
North  and  South^;  and  despite  all  efforts  making  for  unity,  the  various 
branches  maintain  their  separatism  to  the  present  day.  All  Church 
publications  in  the  North  supported  the  Union  cause  during  the  war®^; 
and  all  papers  in  the  South  opposed  the  Union^^.  Of  curious  interest  it 
is  to  learn  that  the  American  Bible  Society  "did  not  confine  its  work  to 
the  Union  troops,  but  grants  were  made  all  through  the  war  to  the 
Southern  armies^^." 

This  entire  situation  was  not  typical  merely  of  the  Christian  churches. 
An  investigation  of  the  Jewish  periodical  press  during  the  war  shows  how 
the  Jews  in  the  North  supported  the  cause  of  the  Union,  while  the  Jews 
in  the  South  were  devoted  to  the  Confederacy'". 

With  this,  the  history  of  the  influences  of  war  and  religion,  as  they 
affected  our  Immediate  Ancestors,  more  particularly  the  Christian  and 
Mohammedan  groups,  is  brought  to  a  close.  While  traditional  thinking 
makes  the  stretch  from  the  earliest  times  of  the  Egyptians  down  to  the 
threshold  of  the  present  day  seem  a  long  one,  yet  these  five  or  six  thousand 
years  that  have  elapsed  are  very  short  when  compared  to  the  tens  of 
thousands  of  years  which  marked  the  progress  of  sociocracy  among  our 
Remote  Ancestors.  While  various  factors  such  as  climate,  geography,  or 
the  general  environmental  conditions,  more  or  less  related  to  these  physi- 
cal elements,  have  been  shown  to  modify  religious  beliefs,  accounting 
thereby  to  an  extent,  for  the  diversity  that  exists,  one  constant  among 
all  such  variables  is  found  in  the  attitude  which  religions  in  all  times  and 

56 


War  and  Religion 


all  climes  have  assumed  to  war.  In  Africa,  Asia,  Australia  as  well  as  in 
Europe  and  America,  relipon  has  followed  the  lead  of  the  "batons  de 
comraandement;"  and  has  found  in  the  policy  of  the  government  under 
which  it  lived,  no  matter  what  that  policy  was,  the  way  in  which  the 
power  it  recognized  in  the  universe  could  be  invoked,  to  bless  with  suc- 
cess the  weapons  used  for  the  defense  of  the  public  cause.  War  then  is 
primary.  Religion  is  essentially  bound  up  with  and  is  secondary  to  it. 
And  the  connection  is  a  thoroughgoing  one. 

It  remains  to  consult  contemporaries,  more  especially  as  all  seem  to 
agree  that  at  the  present  writing  the  world  has  been  plunged  into  the 
"World  War,"  in  which  practically  all  the  nations  of  all  the  continents 
on  the  globe  are  engaged.  In  this  stupendous  role  that  war  is  playing,  it 
must  be  of  supreme  value  to  find  out  what  the  attitude  of  the  religionist 
is.  It  had  been  planned  to  do  this  very  directly  by  asking  as  large  a 
number  of  ministers  and  representative  laymen  of  all  denominations  to 
.state  in  the  name  of  science,  if  not  also  of  religion,  in  what  way  they 
thought  war  and  religion  could  or  should  be  related.  It  may  be  of  value 
for  this  work  to  state  that  the  waiter  was  dissuaded  from  sending  out  the 
questionnaire  he  had  planned  by  reasons  of  expediency.  It  was  felt  that 
not  only  would  it  be  a  waste  of  money  and  effort  because  so  very  few 
replies  would  be  received,  but  it  was  urged  by  most  well-meaning  friends 
that  such  a  procedure  would  be  highly  liable  to  misconstruction  as  being 
unpatriotic.  Whatever  the  sentiments,  the  writer  was  made  to  feel  that  it 
was  the  part  of  prudence  not  to  do  this;  and  this,  coupled  with  material 
considerations,  accomplished  the  defeat  of  the  plan. 

It  might  be  argued  now  as  it  was  then,  that  there  is  ample  testimony  of 
the  present  attitude  to  war  and  religion  in  the  daily  press  of  all  countries 
as  well  as  in  the  religious  papers,  not  to  mention  the  endless  stream  of 
books  published  in  all  lands  from  leaders  in  the  churches  as  well  as  in 
politics,  art,  science,  and  philosophy.  But  as  the  writer  sees  it,  a  very 
unique  piece  of  testimony  would  have  been  afforded  future  generations 
in  thus  securing  the  directly  individual  reaction  of  the  religionist  to  war, 
as  well  as  the  collective  reaction  which,  after  all,  characterizes  all  the 
other  printed  word.  It  was  intended  for  instance  to  ask  the  faculties  of 
all  theological  seminaries,  which  represent  the  scholarship  and  essential 
spirituality  of  each  church,  how  they  would  phrase  the  stand  of  that 
church  in  approval  or  disapproval  of  war,  and  how  impart  that  theology 
to  their  students.  Similarly,  conferences  of  ministers  would  consciously 
explain  how  they  interpret  the  tenets  of  their  faith  to  fit  into  the  events 
of  the  day.  The  present  holds  most  sacred  the  beliefs  and  teachings  of 
the  past  and  uses  them  for  help  in  the  present.  Would  it  not  be  a  precious 
heritage  if  the  present  generation  had  before  it  the  mass  of  individual 
views  of  groups  of  clergymen  of  each  faith  telling  consciously  and  con- 
scientiously how  they  worked  out  a  theory  of  life  and  belief  when  the 
question  of  war  confronted  them?  It  might  be  objected  that  the  mass  of 
material  would  be  overwhelming;  but  authorized  digests  could  be  made 
from  time  to  time.  This,  at  least,  is  the  procedure  in  the  matter  of  the 
legal  relations  of  individuals  to  each  other;  certainly  of  equal  importance 
should  be  considered  the  feeling  of  faith  and  trust  which  a  religious  guide 
of  men  holds  to  the  mystery  of  mysteries.    Even  the  most  out-and-out 

57 


War  and  Religion 


agnostic  should  see  the  value  of  such  spiritual  decisions  for  the  science  of 
religion;  and  the  devout  religionist  would  have  the  carefully,  maturely 
elaborated  ideas  of  his  teachers  before  him.  Suppose  for  instance  there 
had  been  handed  down  from  the  time  when  Constantine  elevated  the 
Church  to  authority  definite,  vouched-for  statistics  of  the  number  of 
churches  in  his  day,  the  number  of  congregants,  the  decisions  of  the 
individual  churches  and  pastors  and  bishops  on  questions  of  polity;  or 
suppose  that  such  particularistic  information  were  available  even  from 
the  time  of  the  Reformation;  a  most  definite  and  exact  science  of  religion 
would  not  only  be  created  equal  in  rank  to  any  other  science,  but  a  con- 
sciousness of  behavior  would  be  so  sharpened,  that  the  many  exas- 
perating generalizations  about  "crowd  psychology"  and  "laws  of  imita- 
tion" would  not  permit  the  laissez-faire  shrug  of  the  shoulders  that  meets 
one  in  places  high  and  low  when  questions  of  moment  are  raised.  Reli- 
gion itself  would  gain  in  dignity  and  worth.  Perhaps  a  great  deal  of  the 
strength  of  the  Catholic  Church  lies  just  in  this  that  there  is  a  recognized 
code  of  religious  law  providing  precedents  whose  binding  force  is  not 
blind  authority  but  the  seal  of  a  history  that  can  be  followed  in  its 
sequences  for  hundreds  of  years.  The  rejoinder  is  expected  that  this  may 
also  be  its  greatest  source  of  weakness.  But  it  cannot  be  if  survival  be 
the  test. 

At  all  events,  when  critical  situations  arise,  the  first  impulse,  and  a 
sort  of  genuine  one,  is  to  find  out  what  some  one  else  did  in  the  present 
or  past  to  meet  such  a  situation.  The  record,  for  example,  as  it  stands 
now  shows  that  all  of  the  initiative  belongs  to  war;  and  in  a  bit  of  anar- 
chistic fashion,  religion  has  always  rushed  in  pellmell  after  war  was 
declared,  adopted  the  slogan  that  the  public  authorities  set;  and  after 
floundering  through  the  war,  started  to  limp  into  recognition  during 
years  of  peace:  but  with  little  success,  for  it  had  discredited  itself  in  not 
speaking  boldly  in  the  name  of  the  all-supreme  power  or  mystery  to 
which  it  declared  its  only  allegiance.  The  majority  of  men,  if  not  all  men, 
are  religious;  they  must  assume  some  attitude  to  mystery;  there  is  no 
dictum  more  scientific  than  that  man  must  live  by  faith.  Some  choose 
to  call  it  "a  theory  of  life;"  but  that  does  not  make  it  any  the  less  blind, 
even  as  faith  is  blind.  Pitt -Rivers,  as  noted  before,  boldly  declared  his 
faith  in  a  Providence  that  has  made  this  world  so,  that  one  of  the  neces- 
sities of  life  is  warfare.  Practically  all  nations  prove  the  truth  of  this,  for 
they  all  strain  and  strive  to  be  armed  to  the  teeth;  but  all  the  while 
religion  weakly  talks  about  peace  and  the  Church's  mission  of  peace. 
Religion  is  then  not  merely  unscientific  but  it  is  untrue;  and  as  one  of 
the  principal  tests  in  life  is  survival,  religion  shows  the  lack  of  staying 
qualities,  not  because  it  is  not  intrinsically  valuable,  but  because  of  this 
seeming  lack  of  fiber  in  those  who  would  and  should  uphold  it.  Religion 
survives  despite  the  flabbiness  of  its  rightful  defenders.  Instead  of  a 
scientist  as  Pitt-Rivers  voicing  the  unabashed  faith  in  a  Power  that  has 
made  the  world  to  be  what  we  actually  find  it  to  be,  the  churchmen  who 
follow  always  in  the  wake  of  war  should  make  such  frank  declarations. 
Instead  of  that  are  found  the  halting,  isolated,  complicated  statements 
that  will  be  cited  soon  in  the  next  chapter  dealing  with  contemporaries. 
Such  a  study  as  Leuba  made  in  his  "The  Belief  in  God  and  Immortality"  in 

58 


War  and  Religion 


which  are  such  definite,  absohite  statements  as  " .  .  disbelief  in  a  personal 
God  and  in  personal  immortality  is  directly  proportional  to  abilities 
making  for  success  in  the  sciences  in  question"  is  a  tremendously  valua- 
ble formula  for  the  sciences  of  Religion,  Sociology,  Psychology,  and,  no 
doubt,  others;  and  as  it  is  based  on  straightforward  evidence  of  the 
highest  character,  it  must  stand  until  nullified  or  disproved  by  evidence 
that  will  be  put  in  the  same  kind  of  balances  and  be  found  not  wanting. 
Leuba's  procedure  could  be  followed  in  this  matter  of  a  questionnaire  to 
ministers  and  prominent  laymen  who  are  devoutly  faithful  to  religion; 
the  evidence  could  be  summarized ;  and  the  world  for  all  time  could  have 
the  benefit  of  such  statements  of  faith  worked  out  with  the  most  pious 
care.  It  is  imperative  that  these  "confessions  of  faith"  be  made  in  the 
stress  of  war  as  well  as  in  peace,  so  that  the  reactions  of  men  be  studied 
under  both  conditions,  for  thereby  human  knowledge  would  be  greatly 
enriched  and  human  faith  would  find  its  true  place  in  the  world — unless 
that  place  must  inevitably  be  that  which  it  always  has  been,  that  which 
the  next  chapter  also  will  show  it  still  to  be,  utterly  secondary  to  war, 
though  speciously  in  these  days  the  champion  of  peace. 

If  this  volume  should  circulate  into  broad  daylight  and  at  the  same 
time  the  world  struggle  still  be  going  on,  it  would  be  ever  so  helpful  if 
all  who  may  read  these  words  would  at  once  express  their  thoughts  on 
war  and  religion,  and  some  recognized  scientific  or  religious  agency  collect 
and  sift  them  and  give  the  world  in  a  concise  and  clear  form,  the  results. 
To  say  that  one  cannot  be  categorical  in  such  matters  is  but  begging  the 
question  in  the  light  of  the  role  that  religion  has  played  in  the  past.  The 
mystery  of  mysteries  is  as  unsolved  today  as  it  was  in  that  dawn  age  of 
man  when  some  of  our  Remote  Ancestors  took  particular  pains  to  inhume 
the  dead  bodies  of  particular  persons  and  deposit  with  them  utensils  and 
weapons  of  war.  Man  is  not  master  of  his  fate  but  he  can  show  some 
awareness  of  it  and  express  it  for  the  benefit  of  future  generations,  even 
as  the  past  did  much  that  makes  the  present  rich.  Religion  should  not 
let  its  birthright  be  taken  from  it  by  the  loyal,  devoted  sons  of  clay  and 
clod,  of  microscope  and  telescope.  It  should  learn  all  that  these  truly 
pious  men  of  science  have  wrested  from  mystery;  and  should  then  march 
boldly  into  the  terra  incognita  and  come  back  to  man  with  the  message 
that  a  thousand  years  in  the  sight  of  the  Supreme  are  but  as  yesterday; 
that  all  that  has  been  discovered  is  vanity  compared  to  all  that  is  undis- 
covered; and  that  the  undiscoverable,  the  mystery  at  the  heart  of  things 
has  a  message — be  it  war,  be  it  peace;  and  "still  small  voice"  though  it 
be,  it  should  be  rightly  more  availing  than  all  the  complicated  machinery 
of  human  invention  which  stops  so  far  short  of  the  impenetrable  veil. 
But  "to  the  testimony"  of  Contemporaries,  incomplete  and  chaotic  as  it 
is,  and  as  sequential  of  the  attitude  of  our  Immediate  Ancestors,  as  was 
that  of  our  Remote  Ancestors,  to  war  and  religion. 


59 


IV.  War  and  Religion  Among  Contemporaries 
Introduction 

It  is  extremely  difficult  to  handle  the  mighty  mass  of  written  material 
dealing  with  war  and  religion  that  has  appeared  recently,  more  especially 
since  the  so-called  world-war  broke  out  in  1914,  To  condense  a  small  but 
representative  part  of  it  to  such  proportions  that  it  will  fit  into  the  com- 
pass of  these  pages,  brings  one  to  set  up  somewhat  arbitrary  rubrics;  and 
in  machine-magnet  fashion  draw  out  of  certain  works  opinions  and  beliefs 
that  would  naturally  cluster  about  these  rubrics,  and  place  them  here  in 
orderly  manner.  While  this  is  unsatisfactory,  yet  the  sustained  endeavor 
not  to  wrest  passages  from  their  context  to  belie  it,  but  rather  to  give  the 
gist  of  the  whole  thought  and  illustrate  it  with  an  apt  quotation,  will 
continue  to  be  the  guiding  principle.  Under  such  headings  then  as 
Christ,  Religious  Claims  in  General,  Germany  Christian  or  Unchris- 
tian, Tolstoy,  Old  Testament  and  New  Testament,  the  Pope,  Chaplains, 
Mohammedanism  or  Turkey,  Quakers,  typical  points  of  view  will  be 
gathered  from  the  vast  host  of  present-day  writers.  More  than  ever, 
the  guiding  spirit  in  this  eclectic  work  will  be  that  which  it  is  hoped  has 
directed  noticeably  the  efforts  in  the  preceding  chapters — to  call  to  the 
witness  stand  men  of  eminence,  who,  at  the  same  time,  are  characterized 
by  a  friendly  if  not  personal  interest  in  the  religion  or  theory  treated. 

In  this  connection  it  may  be  said  that  it  was  felt  to  be  part  of  this 
endeavor  to  be  fair  as  well  as  frank,  to  include  only  the  names  of  such 
contemporaries  who  had  embodied  their  views  in  a  publication  that 
promised  to  be  of  permanent  value;  whereas  those  men  living  whose 
views  are  of  present  value  because  of  their  popularity  as  orators  or 
preachers,  would  be  cited  but  without  disclosing  their  names.  In  every 
case  the  reference  will  be  given  so  that  the  scientific  value  of  this  record 
be  not  impaired;  to  have  been  more  specific  would  have  made  this  study 
bear  some  taint  of  controversialism,  whereas  its  whole,  sole  aim  and 
object  is  to  eliminate  the  subjective,  and  in  utterly  detached  and  dis- 
passionate manner  give  the  record  of  humanity  in  war  and  religion  as 
the  student  in  the  laboratory  conscientiously  observes  and  writes  of  the 
reactions  of  chemicals  or  organisms  when  subjected  to  experimental 
analysis.  Quotations  from  the  daily  secular  press  and  from  the  religious 
papers  and  periodicals  will  also  be  made  without  identifying  the  authors 
other  than  to  mention  the  particular  denomination  professed  by  the 
writer,  and  the  title,  if  any,  of  the  office  held. 

Part  A — Christ 

If  it  is  possible  to  strike  off  an  estimate  of  Christ  that  will  represent 
the  average  opinion  of  today,  it  might  be  expressed  as  a  longing  for  the 
Messianic  conception  of  peace,  characterized  by  a  righteousness  won  by 
peaceful  methods  if  possible,  but  by  warlike  measures  and  by  the  gage  of 
battle,  under  the  compulsion  of  circumstances.  Of  course  there  are 
extreme  views.  Thus  Russell  unequivocally  speaks  of  "the  teaching  of 

60 


War  and  Religion 


Christ,  which  admirable  as  it  is,  remains  quite  inadequate  for  many  of  the 
social  and  spiritual  issues  of  modern  life.  Art  and  intellect  and  all  social 
problems  of  government  are  ignored  in  the  Gospels'."  It  is  interesting 
to  juxtapose  to  this  the  following  words  of  Jevons:  "But  of  all  the  great 
religions  of  the  world  it  is  the  Christian  Church  alone  which  is  so  far  heir 
of  all  the  ages  as  to  fulfill  the  dumb,  dim  expectation  of  mankind;  in  it 
alone  the  sacramental  meal  commemorates  by  ordinance  of  its  founder 
the  divine  sacrifice  which  is  a  propitiation  for  tlie  sins  of  all  man- 
kind-." 

Turning  to  that  larger  company  of  men  whose  views  show  reasonable- 
ness and  intelligence,  there  may  be  cited  first  the  earnest  champion  of 
a  "peace  Christ"  in  W.  E.  Wilson's  "Christ  and  War"  a  revised  edition  of 
which  was  published  in  November  1914.  In  his  introduction  he  posits  as 
the  object  of  the  work,  first  "To  state  clearly  the  Christian  objections  to 
war,"  and  second,  "To  show  how  the  Christian  position  is  supported  by 
Ihe  economic  argument  of  Norman  Angell,"  and  third,  "That  the  whole 
teaching  of  Jesus  is  practical."  For  him,  war  is  essentially  un-Christian*. 
He  interprets  all  the  war  sentiments  uttered  by  Jesus  or  connected  with 
Jesus,  in  a  homiletic  way,  as  not  meaning  literal  belligerency.  He  con- 
tends that  all  these  passages  "can  only  be  understood  in  the  light  of  the 
total  impression  of  all  that  Jesus  Christ  said  and  was*."  At  the  same  time 
he  finds  "something  of  nobleness  and  unselfishness  in  taking  up  arms  to 
protect  some  one  else, .  .  .  for  the  action  is  nearer  to  a  truly  Christian 
spirit  than  is  that  of  the  individual  who  protects  himself^." 

The  Oxford  University  Press  issued  a  series  of  pamphlets  on  the  war 
called  "Papers  for  War  Time."  Number  fifteen,  published  in  1915,  on 
"Christianity  and  Force,"  contains  this  sentence:  "If  we  understood 
Christ's  teachings  aright,  I  believe  that  we  should  hate  war  and  a  good 
many  other  things  with  a  more  perfect  hatred  and  yet  at  the  same  time 
feel  it  a  Christian  duty  to  support  our  country  whole-heartedly  in  the 
present  struggle^."  Number  twenty  of  this  same  series  in  1915  is  on 
"War,  This  War,  and  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount."  The  author  cannot 
reconcile  war  with  a  Christian  civilization,  but  adds :  "  Christ  came  not  as 

a  Lawgiver  or  Sage but  as  Captain  of  a  forlorn  hope Every 

follower  of  Christ  must  serve  on  some  Crusade.  Thus  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount  is  not  to  be  read  as  a  set  of  rules  and  regulations  but  as  a  battle- 
song.  .  . "  People  have  the  misconception  of  the  soldier,  in  regarding  him 
as  an  executioner.  "The  soldier  is  before  all  things  a  man  who  is  ready  to 
die  for  his  country ;  and  readiness  to  die  for  others  is  essentially  a  Chris- 
tian thing^." 

F.  J.  Foakes-Jackson  edited  a  compilation  on  "The  Faith  and  the 
War,"  published  in  London  in  1915.  One  of  the  contributors  argues  for 
the  rightfulness  of  certain  wars.  "...  Christ  and  His  followers  can  hardly 
have  regarded  war  as  always  and  unconditionally  sinful*."  Still  another 
publication,  in  1916  on  "War  and  the  Fear  of  God,"  is  sure  that  the 
war  will  bring  "a  true  good  if  it  puts  an  end  to  this  misinterpretation  of 
Christ,  and  reminds  us  that  the  rudest  savage  who  is  knocked  in  the 
head  fighting  the  battle  of  his  clan  is  nearer  the  kingdom  of  God  than  the 
most  refined  and  cultivated  person  who  lives  on  sacrifice  and  makes 
none'."  In  1916  appeared  "Christianity  After  the  War"  with  the  asser- 

61 


War  and  Religion 


lion  that  "Christ's  whole  life,  character,  teaching  and  self-sacrifice  stood 
for  the  resistance  of  evil  to  the  uttermost'"." 

F.  R.  Barry,  who  is  a  Fellow  and  lecturer  in  Theology  in  Oriel  College 
Oxford  had  published  in  London,  in  1915,  his  book  on  "Religion  and  the 
War."  His  position  is:  "It  is  argued  in  what  follows  that  'non-resis- 
tance' and  the  "will  to  Power"  do  truly  meet  in  Christianity,  and  that  a 
Pacifist,  which  is  also  Christian  warfare  is  indicated  by  the  Cross"." 

There  is  ever  so  much  more  material  in  hand;  but  the  above  consti- 
tutes a  fair  sample  for  illustrating  the  belief  in  Christ  as  essentially  peace- 
loving,  yet  sanctioning  war  when  absolutely  necessary  to  further  His 
Divine  Kingdom.  While  there  must  be  some  overlapping  in  these  sec- 
tions, as  for  instance  the  treatment  of  New  Testament  exegesis  in  con- 
nection with  this  first  part  on  Christ,  each  subdivision  will  be  fairly 
homogeneous.  Thus  in  the  next  part  on  the  "Old  Testament  versus  the 
New  Testament,"  the  one  idea  prevails  concerning  the  sanction  which 
the  former  lends  to  brutal  warfare  and  hence  its  inferiority  to  the  New 
Testament. 

Part  B — Old  Testament  versus  New  Testament 

Wilson,  cited  before,  consults  the  New  Testament  only,  for  the  Old 
is  "admittedly  imperfect'-."  In  the  light  of  this,  it  is  interesting  to  note 
this  author's  history  of  the  early  Church,  as  far  as  its  espousal  of  peace 
is  concerned.  He  finds  little  if  any  adherence  at  any  time  to  the  "peace- 
Christ's." 

A  very  remarkable  collection  of  opinions  is  found  in  A.  Baudrillart's 
"German  War  and  Catholicism"  published  in  Paris  in  1915  under  the 
patronage  of  the  Catholic  Commission  of  French  Propaganda.  One  con- 
tributor, writing  on  "Christian  Laws  of  Warfare,"  insists  that  Catholic 
morality  is  impregnated  with  good  sense,  and  is  "the  inveterate  enemy  of 

Utopias It  teaches  then  that  humanity  will  in  its  depths  always 

keep  the  indestructible  germ  of  every  war."  After  quoting  New  Testa- 
ment passages,  he  concludes :"  Hence  the  right  of  war'^."  Another  partic- 
ipant in  this  collection  writes  on  German  Culture  and  Catholicism,  say- 
ing: "Sometimes  Pan-Germanism  goes  back  to  the  Old  Testament.  .  .  . 
But  Scriptures,  and  especially  the  Old  Testament,  is  a  product  of  the 

Judaic  civilization Although  Luther  is  the  type  of  the  German 

Man,  of  the  Kerndeutsche  Man,  Luther's  Christ  remains  a  Jew'^;.  ..." 

A  British  publication  on  "The  National  Crisis  and  Why  the  Churches 
Fail"  (London  1915)  finds  that  "The  last  cause  of  failure  which  it  may 
be  well  to  notice  is  that  the  average  Churchman  is  at  heart  and  in  spirit, 
as  to  his  religion,  a  Jew.  He  represents  an  arrested  development'®." 
Another  British  publication  avers  that  the  nauseating  and  repulsive 
religion  of  Germany  sprang  "from  the  misuse  of  the  Bible  by  the  Kaiser 

and  his  underlings Thus  it  identifies  Christianity  with  Judaism, 

and  seeks  to  bind  upon  the  Christian  conscience  the  ideals  and  commands 
of  the  Old  Testament'^"  The  Archdeacon  of  Ely,  in  his  "Christianity 
and  Politics"  also  points  out  the  defective  polity  and  morality  of  the 
Old  Testament  as  contrasted  with  the  New'^.  This  same  volume  contains 
an  official  statement  on  the  history  of  the  relations  between  the  Church 
and  War"  which  finds  that  at  first  war  was  tolerated  as  inevitable  in  an 

62 


War  and  Religion 


evil  world.  Then  from  the  fifth  to  the  seventeenth  century  war  was  con- 
secrated as  a  part  of  the  Christian  polity.  Latterly,  war  is  recognized,  as 
an  evil;  but  it  is  essential  "for  the  preservation  of  national  life-".'*  The 
digression  is  included,  as  in  the  case  of  Wilson  at  the  beginning  of  this 
section,  as  a  curious  side-light  on  the  position  taken  on  the  Ohl  Testa- 
ment versus  the  New.  The  Old  is  objected  to,  presumably,  because  it 
puts  the  God  of  Battle  to  the  fore;  nevertheless  the  sentiments  expressed 
in  the  preceding  section  on  Christ,  as  well  as  many  in  this,  only  qualify 
but  do  not  deny  the  compatibility  of  war  and  religion.  This  is  made  most 
clear  in  turning  to  religion  in  Germany. 

Part  C — Germany  Christian  and  Un-Christian 

The  passing  notices  in  some  of  the  preceding  citations  to  the  religious 
beliefs  of  Germany  could  be  multiplied  myriadfold  in  this  section  if  space 
permitted.  Perhaps  few  things  have  become  more  notorious  in  the  lands 
warring  against  Germany  than  the  belief  of  the  Germans  that  God  is 
altogether  on  their  side;  and  the  utterances  of  the  Kaiser  as  reported  so 
very  frequently  in  the  daily  press  are  held  up  to  ridicule  and  generally 
regarded  as  basest  blasphemy.  Thus  the  latest  one  to  hand  at  this  writ- 
ing is  parodied  in  a  representative  metropolitan  newspaper  in  heavy 
headlines  as :  "  Kaiser  Admits  God  to  Full  Alliance."  The  words  Emperor 
William  is  said  to  have  uttered  are:  "We  do  not  know  what  is  still  in 
store  for  us,  but  you  have  seen  how  in  this  last  of  the  four  years  of  war 
God's  hand  has  visibly  prevailed,  punished  treachery  and  rewarded 
heroic  persistence.  From  this  we  can  gain  firm  confidence  that  the  Lord 
will  be  with  us  in  the  future  also.  If  the  enemy  does  not  want  peace  then 
we  must  bring  peace  to  the  world  by  battering  in  with  the  iron  fist  and 
shining  sword  the  doors  of  those  who  will  not  have  peace^'." 

So  infamous  has  Germany  come  to  be  regarded  on  account  of  this 
attitude  to  war  and  religion,  that  one  takes  it  for  granted  that  it  is  so. 
Because  of  this  it  may  seem  vain  to  devote  any  space  to  such  a  generally 
admitted  condition.  But  the  very  fact  that  volumes  and  libraries  could 
be  filled  with  this  particular  subject  alone  makes  it  necessary  to  give 
adequate  notice  to  this  phenomenon  here  because  it  is  such  a  perfect, 
even  if  extreme  illustration,  of  the  truth  herein  to  be  established. 

Again  for  the  sake  of  proportion,  only  a  very  few  can  be  noted  here  of 
the  hundreds  and  thousands  of  writers  who  dwell  on  this  matter  of  Chris- 
tian or  un-Christian  Germany;  and  men  of  the  highest  caliber  will  be 
selected  for  these  few  representatives.  By  way  of  emphasis  as  well  as  for 
purposes  of  harmonious  presentation,  Bernhardi  who  has  been  selected 
to  give  the  German  viewpoint  will  be  reserved  for  a  section  by  himself, 
immediately  succeeding  that  devoted  to  Tolstoy,  so  that  each  may  serve 
as  a  foil  to  the  other. 

An  article  in  "The  Churchman"  (London  1914)  on  "German  Chris- 
tianity and  the  Great  War"  would  prove  that  Eucken  is  not  Christian 
despite  his  learned  assertions.  The  Germans  offer  to  the  world  the  tiger 
in  man  instead  of  the  strength  of  Christ^^. 

The  utterances  of  Gilbert  Murray  must  command  attention  not  only 
because  of  his  well-merited  fame,  but  for  the  remarkable  contrast  his 

63 


War  and  Religion 


words  present  to  the  gentle,  poetic  manner  and  style  of  this  man  whose 
spare  form  is  aglow  with  spirituality  when  he  recites  with  fervor  and 
enthusiasm  selections  from  the  immortal  dramatists  of  classic  Greece. 
He  has  written  much  on  the  war,  in  a  tone  naturally  exalted  and  generally 
noble,  but  none  the  less  firm  and  intensely  patriotic.  He  contributes  a 
paper  on  "  Ethical  Problems  of  the  War"  in  a  volume  edited  by  J.  E.  Car- 
penter, containing  "fourteen  addresses  by  leading  British  men,"  all  on 
the  theme  "Ethical  and  Religious  Problems  of  the  War"  published  in 
London  in  1916. 

Murray  says  that  the  war  appealed  to  him  first  as  an  ethical  problem. 
He  has  not  the  least  doubt  "in  any  corner  of"  his  mind  but  that  the  war 
was  right.  He  thinks  that  the  break-up  of  the  Empire  would  be  a  great 
disaster  for  the  world.  But  greater  than  all  other  evils  it  would  be  to 
submit  to  Germany  because  that  land  represents  the  rule  of  naked  force**. 
In  a  book  from  Murray's  pen  published  a  few  months  ago,  on  "Faith, 
War  and  Policy,"  he  regards  Germany  as  a  "nation  of  lost  souls"."  In 
1914,  when  the  war-storm  burst,  he  found  himself  completely  changed 
from  an  ardent  peace-lover  to  a  man  "resolute  to  face  death  and  to  kill." 
He  was  sorry  each  day  when  reports  in  the  press  announced  fewer  Ger- 
mans slain  than  the  day  before.  Yet  he  does  not  hate  the  Germans  but 

their  "Prussian  blood-and-iron  ambition,  their  strange  culture that 

idol  of  blood  and  clay  and  true  gold-^ "." 

Another  leading  Briton  included  in  Carpenter's  collection  regards  the 
conflict  as  a  "battle  between  God  and  the  Devil."  He  is  persuaded  that 
the  world  will  "exorcise  the  demon"  that  Germany  is". 

There  are  many  more  men  of  light  and  leading  who  could  and  should 
be  cited  here  on  the  un-Christian  religion  of  Germany.  A  glance  through 
the  Oxford  Pamphlets,  more  especially  those  dealing  with  war  and  religion 
would  reveal  much  useful  material.  Some  of  the  pamphlets  are  written 
by  such  men  as  the  Bishop  of  Lincoln,  and  the  Dean  of  Christ  Church, 
Oxford.  An  exceptional  offering  is  from  the  Principal  of  Mansfield  Col- 
lege, Oxford,  who  in  his  "The  War  and  Theology"  finds  some  Christianity 
in  Germany,  and  who  insists  more  on  the  thought  of  utilizing  Germany  as 
a  solemn  warning  to  England  rather  than  inveighing  against  the  enemy^. 

This  leniency  in  judgment,  however,  is  submerged  in  the  torrents  of 
hate  that  course  through  "The  War  and  Religion,"  by  Alfred  Loisy, 
translated  from  the  French  and  vehemently  prefaced  by  A.  Galton,  pub- 
lished at  Oxford,  England  in  1915.  One  is  led  to  believe  that  M.  Loisy, 
of  the  College  de  France,  is  offering  a  scientific,  dispassionate  study  of 
war  and  religion'^'.  Instead  of  this,  one  finds  himself  wading  through  the 
turbulent,  boiling  stream  of  perfervid  patriotism,  led  on  by  the  oriflamme: 
"  the  salvation  of  France.  Here  is  our  common  religion ;  one  which  has 
no  unbelievers'"."  The  preface  denounces  the  "innate  bestiality  of  the 

Germanic  nature The  Prussians  are  uncivilized,  and  uncivilizable; 

and  the  Allies  should  deal  with  them  accordingly'^"  Loisy  is  also  bitter 
against  the  German  "beast  of  prey'^."  But  he  divides  his  surging  passion 
between  inveterate  hate  against  the  Papal  institution  and  exaltation  of 
devotion  to  one's  country.  He  maintains  that  "the  religion  which  is 
most  alive,  which  for  a  great  number  of  people  is  the  only  living  one, 
is  not  the  Christian  faith,  but  devotion  to  one's  country"." 

64 


War  and  Religion 


Such  impassioned  sentiments  may  well  serve  to  turn  this  current  of 
thought  on  "  Germany  Christian  or  un-Christian"  to  a  most  brief  considera- 
tion of  two  meaty  volumes  published  in  1917  that  aim  to,  and  in  general, 
do  give  an  impartial  and  fair  review  of  German  war  thought,  especially 
along  religious  lines.  One  bears  the  strange  title  "Hurrah  and  Hallelu- 
jah." The  author,  J.  P.  Bang,  a  Dane,  offers  this  explanation  of  it:  "The 
new  German  spirit  has  found  one  of  its  most  classical  expressions  in  a 
collection  of  poems  published  by  a  German  pastor,  Konsistorialrat 
Dietrich  Vorwerk,  under  the  significant  title,  Hurrah  and  Hallelujah.  I 
find  in  this  combination  something  so  absolutely  characteristic  of  the 
German  spirit,  that  I  have  adopted  it  as  the  title  of  this  book.  In  the 
first  edition  of  Pastor  Vorwerk's  book  there  occurred  a  paraphrase  of  the 
Lord's  Prayer,  of  which  I  will  cite  the  last  three  petitions  and  the  close: 

"Though  the  warrior's  bread  be  scanty,  do  Thou  work  daily  death  and 
tenfold  woe  unto  the  enemy.  Forgive  in  merciful  long-suffering  each 
bullet  and  each  blow  which  misses  its  mark,  etc.,  etc.**  ^^"  But  the  Ger- 
mans thought  this  was  blasphemous  and  it  did  not  appear  in  later  edi- 
tions of  the  book^^.  Nevertheless  the  sermons  of  the  German  preachers 
that  fill  the  collection  by  Bang  show  merely  a  change  in  letter  and  not  in 
spirit.  There  are  whole  series  of  preachments  on  "The  German  God." 
And  the  assertion  is  weary ingly  made  that  "the  nature  of  Germanism  is 
one  with  the  nature  of  Christianity*'  •*."  Bang  disclaims  any  intention  of 
drawing  up  a  case  against  German  religiosity.  He  has  gathered  the 
average  religious  beliefs  of  the  German  pastors.  He  cannot  but  conclude 
that  "arrogance,  self-righteousness,  the  blindest  Pharisaism,  and  the 
bitterest  hatred,  characterize  a  great  number  of  German  sermons  at  the 
present  time^^."  To  prove  that  he  aims  to  be  fair,  he  includes  the  more 
elevated  thoughts  of  a  few  representative  Germans.  But  their  voices 
are  lost  in  the  large  chorus  of  hate***. 

The  second  collection  entitled:  "Gems(.'')  of  German  Thought"  made 
by  a  representative  Englishman,  W.  Archer,  includes  quotations  from  the 
leading  German  thinkers  and  scientists  as  well  as  from  the  religionists. 
The  author  doubts  "whether  the  literature  of  the  world  can  show  a  paral- 
lel to  the  amazing  outburst  of  tribal  arrogance,  unrestrained  and  un- 
ashamed, of  which  these  pages  contain  but  a  few  scattered  specimens." 
He  says  that  "many  of  the  wildest  shrieks  of  self-glorification  and  ferocity 
proceed  from  clerics  and  theologians^^"  Archer  lays  much  stress  on  "the 
living  influence  of  Nietzsche"  whose  " Zarathustra"  along  with  "Faust 
and  the  New  Testament  were  found,  upon  German  investigation,  to  be 
the  books  most  in  demand  among  the  soldiers*^."  Then  follow  long  series 
of  quotations  from  Haeckel,  Harnack,  Bernhardi,  Nietzsche,  finding 
their  climax  in  Nietzsche's  famous  words:  "Ye  say  it  is  the  good  cause 
which  halloweth  even  war?  I  say  unto  you,  it  is  the  good  war  which 
halloweth  every  cause."  "Ye  shall  love  peace  as  a  means  to  new  wars — 
and  the  short  peace  more  than  the  lon^  44  45  46  «" 

Finally,  a  word  should  be  quoted  from  the  address  by  the  renowned 
F.  Delitzsch,  delivered  in  Berlin  in  1914,  on  the  subject:  " Psalmenworte 
fiir  die  Gegenwart,"  because  it  is  so  reminiscent  of  Vorwerk's  paraphrase 
on  the  Ix)rd's  Prayer.  His  text  is  Psalm  121.  In  closing,  he  quotes  the 
Psalm  and  paraphrases  the  last  verse  thus:   "Der  Herr  behiite  unsern 

65 


War  and  Religion 


Ausgang  und  Eingang  in  das  neue  Kriegsjahr  und  sei  mit  Deutschland 
von  nun  bis  in  Ewigkeit!"  Amen"**! 

From  this  bottomless  welter  of  opinion  there  is  one  thing  that  clearly 
emerges.  To  the  average  non-German  there  is  no  people  so  un-Christian, 
so  befogged  with  the  traditions  of  the  old  tribal  religion  as  is  the  German 
folk ;  and  conversely,  to  the  Germans,  no  nation  has  the  exalted  religious 
consciousness  of  Christianity  that  inheres  in  themselves.  From  both  of 
these  contentions  one  thing  is  most  sure.  Religion  is  playing  no  small 
part  in  helping  the  rulers  to  carry  out  their  plans,  thus  showing  that  in 
this  latest  day,  religion  is  still  essentially  connected  with  war,  and  in  a 
secondary  capacity.  And  as  this  tale  has  now  been  brought  to  the  very 
present  moment,  this  connection  between  war  and  religion  must  be 
thoroughgoing. 

Pari  D — Religious  Claims  in  General 

If  only  partial  justice  were  to  be  done  to  this  rubric,  one  would  have 
to  edit  a  series  of  volumes  not  dissimilar  to  the  book  by  Sweet  on  the 
"Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  Civil  War"  that  was  used  in  con- 
nection with  the  preceding  chapter;  and  the  effort  to  make  it  completely 
scientific  would  involve  the  expenditure  of  too  much  labor  in  order  to 
bring  out  the  very  same  class  of  material  and  conclusions  that  Sweet 
gathered  in  his  volume.  For  all  the  leading  churches  of  all  denominations; 
all  the  leading  church  publications ;  all  the  popular  clergymen  of  every 
faith  with  but  two  exceptions;  all  the  influential  laymen  interested  in 
Church  work;  all  the  rulers  of  all  the  countries  possibly  excepting  France; 
all  the  congregations  without  exception,  have  asked  the  blessing  of  God 
on  their  efforts  to  crush  the  enemy  or  to  gain  the  victory.  A  great  deal 
of  evidence  is  at  hand;  but  in  the  light  of  all  the  preceding  attention  given 
to  Contemporaries  and  because  of  the  projected  study  of  Bernhardi,  the 
Quakers,  Tolstoy,  and  a  hasty  consideration  of  theories  of  progress,  it 
ought  not  to  be  regarded  as  essential  here  to  burden  this  lengthy  account 
of  war  and  religion  with  this  superabundant  material. 

It  should  be  sufficient  to  say  that  the  gamut  of  religious  expression 
today  runs  from  such  a  public  utterance  made  before  a  responsible 
American  audience  by  a  minister,  to  the  effect,  that  if  he  had  his  way, 
every  bullet  that  was  fired  at  the  Germans  should  have  upon  it  the  sign 
of  the  Cross  (the  address  was  quoted  in  a  conservative,  careful  newspaper 
of  a  very  large  circulation  and  was  delivered  a  year  before  the  United 
States  entered  the  war);  and  in  gradation  from  this  run  hundreds  of 
examples  of  the  words  of  popular  preachers  occupying  the  most  promi- 
nent pulpits  among  all  the  Christian  denominations,  as  well  as  among 
the  Jewish,  who  had  been  outspoken  pacifists,  believing  that  the  message 
of  religion  was  that  of  peace.  But  when  the  President  of  the  United 
States  sent  his  war  message  to  the  Congress,  all  of  them  supported  his 
program  with  the  exception  of  two  men  who  are  leaders  in  the  Unitarian 
Church  which  embraces,  comparatively,  but  a  handful  of  followers,  and 
which  as  a  church  group  in  convention  formally  endorsed  the  war-policy 
of  the  nation  as  did  the  conferences  and  meetings  of  all  other  church 
bodies.  Of  the  groups  that  spoke  very  eloquently  for  the  idea  of  the 
peace  interpretation  of  the  Godhead,  none  seemed  to  surpass,  in  pre-war 

66 


War  and  Religion 


days  the  Rabbis  of  Reform  Judaism,  under  whom  the  writer  of  this  study 
was  educated.  Their  preachments  were  built  fundamentally,  if  not 
wholly,  on  the  words  of  the  great  Prophets  of  Israel;  and  the  Reform 
Jewish  ministry  regarded  it  as  its  special  prerogative  to  enunciate  and 
revivify  the  prophetic  doctrines  which  they  summed  up  in  the  words: 
"Ethical  Monotheism,"  a  religion  of  righteousness  and  peace.  Many 
of  them  were  most  fond  of  quoting  as  their  motto:  "Israel's  mission  is 
peace."  There  seemed  much  of  the  Quaker  spirit  in  their  words,  that  laid 
such  emphasis  on  this  idea  of  deity  and  a  mission  of  peace.  But  though 
a  few  declaimed  against  the  preparedness  campaign  that  swept  the 
country  during  the  months  preceding  its  entry  into  the  war,  most  of 
them  supported  it  whole-heartedly.  And  finally,  when  war  was  requested 
of  the  Congress,  not  one  remained  to  champion  this  peace  religion  that 
was  read  from  the  Prophets;  but  on  the  contrary,  one  or  two  of  the  most 
prominent  pulpiteers  who  were  most  fervent  interpreters  of  the  Prophetic 
Faith  have  now  become  equally  earnest  in  their  support  of  the  war.  The 
expression  used  most  widely  by  all  religionists  in  pulpit  and  pew,  and  in 
all  denominations,  is  that  this  is  a  righteous  or  holy  war;  and  that  God 
desires  those  W'ho  believe  in  Him  to  lay  down  their  lives,  if  necessary,  for 
such  a  blessed  cause  as  the  nation  is  struggling  to  uphold. 

The  President  of  the  United  States  used  as  his  closing  words  to  the 
message  he  sent  to  the  Congress,  asking  that  war  be  declared  against 
Germany,  the  sentence:  "God  helping  her,  she  can  do  no  other^^."  Two 
weeks  after  the  declaration  of  war,  the  President  issued  a  special  message 
to  the  country  at  large  asking  for  the  entire  co-operation  of  all  the  people 
for  the  successful  prosecution  of  the  war.  His  opening  words  were: 
"My  Fellow-Countrymen :  The  entrance  of  our  own  beloved  country 
into  the  grim  and  terrible  war  for  democracy  and  human  rights  which  has 
shaken  the  world,  creates  so  many  problems  of  national  life  and  action 
which  call  for  immediate  consideration  and  settlement,  that  I  hope  you 
will  permit  me  to  address  to  you  a  few  words  of  earnest  counsel  and 
appeal  with  regard  to  them."  Then  follow  particular  expressions  of 
appeal  to  employers  and  employed  of  all  kinds.  The  last  words  are 
addressed  specifically  to  clergymen  in  this  wise :  "And  I  hope  that  clergy- 
men will  not  think  the  theme  of  it  an  unworthy  or  inappropriate  subject 
of  comment  and  homily  from  their  pulpits.  The  supreme  test  of  the 
nation  has  come.  We  must  all  speak,  act,  and  serve  together."  (Signed) 
"Woodrow  Wilson^"." 

The  following  telegrams  were  exchanged  on  December  25,  1917,  by 
government  officials: 

"Please  extend  to  the  President  and  the  Secretary  of  War  holiday 
greetings  and  best  wishes  for  the  success  of  our  arms  during  the  coming 
year,  and  convey  them  from  all  ranks  of  the  American  Expeditionary 
Forces  in  France  renewed  pledge  of  devotion  to  our  sacred  cause.  Like- 
wise extend  our  greetings  to  our  comrades  at  home,  coupled  with  full 
confidence  in  patience,  courage  and  devotion  to  the  flag."  (Signed) 
"Pershing." 

The  War  Department  made  public  the  following  reply  to  this  Christ- 
mas greeting  from  General  Pershing,  by  General  Bliss,  Chief  of  Staff: 

"The  President  and  Secretary  of  War  send  to  you  and  to  the  American 

67 


War  and  Religion 


Army  in  France  the  most  cordial  greeting  and  good  wishes  for  this 
Christmas  season  from  the  people  of  the  United  States.  Your  comrades 
in  arms  in  every  camp  and  cantonment  send  you  greetings.  From  every 
home  today  goes  a  prayer  for  the  welfare  and  success  of  our  troops  in 
France,  and  personally  for  that  of  every  man  of  them.  The  nation  reposes 
in  you  and  them  its  full  confidence  that  in  God's  good  time  and  with 
God's  blessing,  its  troops  in  France,  side  by  side  with  their  gallant  allies, 
will  bring  victory  and  abiding  peace  to  all  the  world."  "Bliss*^" 

In  view  of  such  an  utterly  unmanageable  mass  of  material  all  of  which 
resolves  itself  into  the  attitude  to  war  and  religion  that  has  been  found 
unexceptionally  the  same  from  the  Remote  Past  up  to  the  present,  it 
was  thought  that  this  part  devoted  to  "Religious  Claims  in  General" 
would  be  most  worth  while  if  but  three  or  four  of  the  leading  thinkers  of 
today,  who  felt  the  cause  of  religion  sincerely  and  deeply,  were  consulted 
now. 

The  stage  which  the  thinking  of  Gilbert  Murray  reached  this  year  has 
been  spoken  of  before.  As  in  the  case  of  everything  that  has  gone  before, 
the  man's  words  will  be  given  without  any  opinion  expressed  on  them. 
This  book,  be  it  again  said,  is  concerned  almost  entirely  with  the  presen- 
tation of  facts  that  bear  on  humanity's  reactions  to  war  and  religion,  and 
in  this  volume  the  historical  evidence  alone  is  to  be  submitted.  The 
study  must  be  continued  into  the  realms  of  psychology  and  biology 
before  a  judgment  or  opinion  that  is  thorough,  can  be  formed.  In  this 
spirit,  therefore,  Murray's  attitude  is  given  as  a  fact  of  contemporaneous 
reaction  to  war  and  religion. 

He  says :  "We  are  driven  back  to  a  sort  of  mysticism.  Mankind  knows 
that  suffering  itself  is  evil,  but  the  wish  to  cause  suffering  is  incalculably 
and  disproportionately  worse.  All  the  cruel  deeds,  all  the  killing  and 
maiming  that  are  done  day  by  day,  night  by  night,  over  most  of  Europe, 
are  not  the  real  will,  not  the  real  free  actions  of  any  man.  It  is  all  a 
thing  that  has  happened.  Who  among  men  ever  wished  for  this  war?  We 
know  that  our  own  statesmen  strained  every  nerve  to  prevent  it.  The 
soldiers  fighting  never  wished  it.  No  one  wished  it.  Not  the  great 
criminals  and  semi-maniacs  in  Germany  and  Austria  who  brought  it 
about;  not  even  they  wished  for  this.  What  they  wished  was  wicked 
enough.  Heaven  help  them;  when  they  dreamed  of  their  triumphal  march 
on  Paris  and  the  rest  of  the  frischer  fr^hlicher  Krieg,  the  "fresh  and 
joyous  war."  But  they  never  wished  for  this  that  has  come.  They 
thought  it  would  be  quite  different.  They  are  staring  aghast,  like  Frank- 
enstein, at  the  monster  they  have  created. 

"But  it  makes  some  difference  in  one's  ultimate  judgment,  it  saves  one 
from  a  wild  reaction  against  all  organized  human  society  as  an  accursed 
thing,  if  we  realize  that  the  war  is  not  really  the  work  of  man's  will.  It 
is  more  a  calamity  to  pity  than  a  crime  to  curse"-." 

An  equally  striking  confession  is  contained  in  Hastings  Rashdall's 
discussion  of  the  "Problem  of  Evil."  The  conclusion  of  it  is:  "On  our 
view  there  are  no  forces  of  evil  in  the  world  except  the  forces  which  God 
has  caused  and  continues  to  cause;  and  God  would  not  have  caused  them 
at  all  unless  He  had  been  conscious  of  the  power  to  overcome  them 
sufficiently  to  produce  a  balance  of  good  on  the  whole.  This  much  we 

G8 


War  and  Religion 


may  assert  confidently Why  all  this  evil  should  be  necessary  as 

the  means  to  au  ultimate  pood  on  the  whole these  are  questions 

which  we  can  never  answer^'." 

This  discussion  is  found  in  the  compilation  of  Foakes-Jackson  referred 
to  before.  The  compiler  states  in  the  preface  that  all  the  contributors  are 
at  one  in  the  belief  that  the  Christian  Church  has  not  yet  risen  to  the 
occasion,  but  that  this  fiery  trial  will  purify  it.  All  agree  also  on  the 
justice  of  England's  cause.  Further,  the  volume  is  characterized  by  "a 
conspicuous  absence  of  impractical  suggestions  as  to  what  should  be 
done  under  circumstances  which  may  never  arise*^." 

A  reference,  if  only  a  passing  one,  must  be  made  to  the  bulky  publica- 
tions of  the  "Federal  Council  of  the  Churches  of  Christ  in  America." 
Much  of  this  material  breathed  a  lofty  spirit,  in  pre-war  days,  of  recon- 
ciliation and  peace  among  the  nations^^  But  when  the  country  entered 
the  war,  the  Council  called  a  special  meeting  in  which  resolutions  were 
passed,  consecrating  the  churches  with  "their  resources  of  courage,  of 
sacrifice,  of  service,  of  prayer,  to  the  uses  of  the  nation  as  it  steadies  itself 
for  the  travail  and  triumph  of  war^'."  The  entire  proceedings  of  this 
special  meeting  were  published  under  the  title:  "The  Churches  of  Christ 
in  Time  of  War"  in  "the  hope  that  they  may  serve  pastors,  teachers,  and 
churches  in  adjusting  their  service  to  the  call  of  the  hour''"." 

More  or  less  similar  testimony  is  afforded  by  another  publication 
of  this  Federal  Council.  It  is  "The  Fight  for  Peace,"  by  S.  L.  Gulick. 
(New  York  1915)  who  is  laboring  so  earnestly  for  a  better  understanding 
between  Japan  and  America.  The  book  begins  with  a  prayer  by  Rauschen- 
busch  in  which  occur  the  words:  "Bless  our  soldiers  and  sailors  for  their 

swift  obedience May  our  young  men  still  rejoice  to  die  for  their 

country*" ..." 

As  it  is  feared  that  this  section  is  already  too  extended,  it  was  thought 
best  to  limit  the  remainder  of  it  to  the  Quakers,  Bernhardi  and  Tolstoy, 
and  to  a  word  on  Progress,  instead  of  adding  the  other  captions  of  Turkey 
and  Christianity  which  after  all  would  mean  repetition  of  the  material 
on  Immediate  Ancestors : — a  fitful  flaming  up  of  the  century -old  struggle 
between  the  men  of  the  southern  and  northern  grasslands;  the  topic 
"Chaplains"  need  not  be  expatiated  upon  in  view  of  what  was  said  re- 
garding Sweet's  book  and  the  all-too-short  notice  of  the  activities  of  the 
Federal  Churches  of  Christ;  the  Pope  and  the  Papacy  ought  to  be  treated 
at  length  for  its  constituency  runs  into  the  millions  as  does  that  of  the 
Federal  Churches,  and  because  of  the  Pope's  efforts  to  bring  about  peace. 
But  the  latter  has  created  such  a  confusion  of  opinion  that  it  is  best  to 
say  no  more  concerning  it  at  the  present  time.  The  general  viewpoint  of 
the  Church  of  Rome  may  best  be  summarized  in  the  Christmas  message 
which  the  Pope  sent  the  American  people  on  December  24,  1917,  through 
the  Associated  Press,  a  most  reliable  news  gathering  organization;  and 
in  addition  the  Christmas  message  at  the  same  time  of  Cardinal  Gibbons. 
The  Pope's  words  are: 

"The  Holy  Father  sends  to  the  people  of  America  his  cordial  greetings 
and  prays  that  they  may  take  to  heart,  in  this  time  of  strife  and  suffering, 
the  true  lesson  of  Christmastide — the  lesson  of  God's  unceasing  love  for 
mankind;  the  lessons  of  unfaltering  courage  and  sacrifice  of  self. 

i  69 


War  and  Religion 


"More  especially  he  calls  upon  the  little  children  to  whom  this  day 
belongs,  to  pray  with  all  their  hearts  to  the  Babe  of  Bethlehem  that  He 
may  protect  their  loved  ones  and  give  back  to  the  world  that  peace  which 
He  came  to  bring  upon  earth^"." 

The  message  of  Cardinal  Gibbons  is  as  follows: 

"To  all  the  soldiers  and  sailors  in  the  service  of  the  United  States: 
The  message  of  Christmas  is  that  of  obedience.  The  Christ  Child  whom 
all  Christendom  loves  and  admires  came  into  the  world  of  His  own  mak- 
ing to  fulfill  the  will  of  His  Heavenly  Father.    If  that  Christ  Child  should 
come  into  the  world  today  He  would  say: 

"  'In  the  head  of  the  Book  it  is  written  that  I  should  do  Thy  will. 
Behold  I  come.' 

"Before  the  infant  Saviour  opened  His  mouth,  He  taught  in  His 
human  form  the  wonderful  lesson  of  obedience.  In  sending  to  all  of  you 
my  very  best  wishes  for  a  Merry  Christmas  and  a  Happy  New  Year,  I 
entreat  you  to  learn  this  lesson  of  the  Divine  Infant,  obedience  to  the  will 
of  your  superiors^'." 

Part  E—The  Quakers 

It  is  possible  that  at  times  the  reader  of  these  pages  felt  within  him  a 
rankling  resentment  against  what  appeared  as  a  one-sided  view  of  the 
role  of  religion  as  essentially  bound  up  with  war,  as  its  slavish  abettor 
and  aid;  and  this  objector  desired  to  raise  the  question  more  than  once: 
"What  of  the  Quakers?" 

It  must  be  admitted  that  the  answer  to  this  question  cannot  be  as 
decided  and  clear  as  all  that  which  has  gone  before.  First,  the  Quakers 
are  lost,  numerically  speaking,  in  the  general  population.  Then  their 
earliest  traditions  and  history  do  not  center  about  an  anti-war  attitude 
at  all.  Further,  while  their  faith  in  peace  naturally  brought  them  later 
to  clash  with  the  public  authorities  whenever  war  supervened,  they  them- 
selves were  divided  on  the  question  of  the  righteousness  of  a  war  of 
defence  or  of  offence.  There  are  two  points  to  be  considered  which  savor 
of  hairsplitting  but  only  because  the  Quakers  are  numerically,  as  stated 
before,  a  negligible  minimum.  The  first  point  is  reflected  in  such  criticism 
as  is  most  generally  directed  against  all  anti-war  advocates  and  may  be 
found  in  Galton's  preface  to  Loisy's  book  spoken  of  before.  He  says: 
"The  survival  of  the  Quakers  was  only  possible  because  they  have  always 
been  an  insignificant  minority,  that  has  owed  its  protection  solely  to  the 
maintenance  by  others  of  the  very  principles  which  itself  repudiates  and 
declines  to  share.  A  leading  Quaker  is  reported  to  have  said  recently: 
"Trust  in  God,  and  damn  the  consequences."  Most  assuredly,  the  conse- 
quences of  not  resisting  Germany  would  be  damnable. 

"Though  the  Quakers  declined  military  service  and  deprecated  force, 
they  have  always  enjoyed  the  full  protection  of  soldiers  and  police.  It 
is  incredible  that  Jesus  anticipated  or  would  countenance  such  a  dis- 
honest solution  of  his  problem®^."  Cunningham  is  a  trifle  more  generous 
in  his  judgment  of  them.  In  his  "Christianity  and  Politics"  he  thinks 
there  is  much  in  the  New  Testament  to  justify  their  attitude  to  war,  but 
he  thinks  they  are  too  particularistic  in  their  theology  and  "they  con- 
demned the  attitude  which  had  been  taken  by  Christian  men  towards 

70 


War  and  Religion 


war  in  all  previous  ages."  Later  in  his  hook,  he  again  affirms  "There  can 
be  no  doubt  that  much  phxusible  argument  can  be  adduced  in  favor  of 
their  position  from  the  New  Testament"  but  "they  were  not  consistently 
following  the  example  of  the  Early  Christians,  as  they  had  no  scruple  in 
securing  their  rights  by  litigation,  and  had  no  rules  to  enable  them  to 
refrain  from  hard  bargains  in  business^," 

A  strictly  fair  interpretation  of  the  facts  of  the  case  must  show  that 
these  recriminations  against  the  Society  of  Friends  as  such  are  unfair 
and  untrue.  Individuals  may  err,  but  in  the  large  the  faithful  followers 
of  Fox  or  better,  as  they  might  wish  to  put  it,  of  the  "Inner  Light,"  have 
an  enviable  record  in  living  up  to  the  ideals  that  are  generally  considered 
praiseworthy. 

The  much  more  difficult  question,  the  one  of  direct  concern  to  this 
study,  is  the  "war"  activities  of  such  official  groups  among  the  Quakers 
in  England  and  America  as  may  be  conveniently  designated  as  "Recon- 
struction Units."  "Ambulance  Corps,"  and  much  of  what  is  known  today 
as  "Red  Cross  Activities."  It  may  be  a  matter  of  quibbling  to  decide 
whether  such  endeavors  during  war  times  may  be  construed  as  a  sanc- 
tion, by  this  religious  sect,  of  the  prosecution  of  the  war  by  the  Govern- 
ment. The  principal  argument  pro  is  that  such  works  of  mercy  must  be 
done  by  the  sincere  believer  in  Jesus  whether  it  be  in  time  of  war  or 
peace;  the  principal  thing  is  to  abstain  from  joining  in  battle.  On  the 
other  hand,  Quakers  themselves  contend  that  abstention  from  even  such 
works  of  love  and  mercy  mean  the  absolute  non-recognition  of  warfare, 
the  bringing  of  the  battling  sooner  to  an  end.  For  if  the  Friends  did  not 
do  such  works  of  kindness  and  reconstruction,  the  combatants  would 
have  to  devote  some  of  their  energies  to  these,  instead  of  releasing  all  of 
the  population  for  the  feverish  pursuit  of  manufacturing  the  implements 
of  war,  and  the  actual  filling  of  the  ranks  by  such  men,  who  would  other- 
wise be  compelled  to  perform  these  "peace"  duties.  Some  student  of 
ethics  in  the  far  distant  future  may  be  able,  dispassionately,  to  decide 
the  merits  of  this  query.  But  on  the  face  of  it,  there  can  be  no  gain- 
saying that  such  helpful  activities  give  "aid  and  comfort"  to  the  Govern- 
ments enjoying  such  valuable  assistance  freely  and  abundantly  rendered. 
The  witness  they  bear  against  war  is  a  passive  and  indirect  one;  not  an 
active  and  aggressive  one  such  as  Fox  and  his  disciples  bore  against  "hat 
wearing,"  and  the  theological  spinnings  of  the  preachers  of  the  day, 
against  the  "steeple-houses,"  fashionable  dress,  and  shams  in  general. 

In  truth  there  is  nothing  in  earliest  Quaker  traditions  that  would  mean 
the  development  of  such  an  utterly  intolerant  position  against  war. 
Braithwaite's  study  on  "The  Beginnings  of  Quakerism"  expressly  states 
that  it  was  against  carousing  in  drink,  through  the  custom  of  treating, 
that  started  Fox  on  his  religious  career;  and  there  is  next  to  nothing  in 
his  whole  life  and  thought  to  suggest  that  he  was  most  exercised  against 
warfare.  He  wanted  men  to  dwell  on  the  life  of  Jesus  and  not  theorize 
on  the  death  and  resurrection.  It  was  the  life  of  simplicity,  sincerity, 
humility,  meekness  and  returning  good  for  evil,  and  not  doctrinal  dis- 
putes and  wranglings  over  dogmas,  that  made  the  Inner  Light  by  which 
Jesus  guided  men  to  the  Father.  They  were  so  zealous  against  ceremo- 
nial and  priestcraft  and  a  paid  ministry  that  they  grew  virulent  and 

71 


War  and  Religion 


shockingly  intolerant  in  their  pamphleteering,  though  no  less  so  than  was 
considered  usual  in  those  days.  As  far  as  the  beginnings  of  Quakerism 
are  concerned  there  is  no  overwhelming  evidence  of  anti-war  propaganda; 
on  the  contrary,  there  is  some  indirect,  important  testimony  favoring 
war**  ".  This  is  all  the  more  surprising  because  Quakerism  owed  so  much 
to  sectaries  of  the  Anabaptist  character.  And  these,  as  noted  before, 
had  adopted  the  anti-war  dogma  as  one  of  their  principal  tenets.  Yet 
Fox  seems  to  have  been  influenced  more  by  the  deep  earnestness  and 
simple  spirituality  of  these  men  than  by  any  specific  anti-war  doctrine. 

Quakerism  never  gained  a  large  following.  It  may  be  fair  to  say  that 
each  period  of  warfare  it  passed  through  left  it  always  weaker  numeri- 
cally. In  his  "The  Quakers  in  the  American  Colonies,"  R.  M.  Jones 
notes  the  division  created  among  them  by  the  American  Revolution**. 
In  the  American  Civil  War  it  is  stated  that  they  enlisted  in  greater  pro- 
portion to  their  numbers  than  any  other  denomination.  In  the  present 
world-war,  the  Friends  have  not  only  oflScially  approved  of  the  works 
of  mercy  in  connection  with  the  struggle,  but  communications  have 
appeared  not  infrequently  in  the  daily  press  giving  their  views  for  and 
against  the  duties  of  Friends  in  the  matter  of  actual  service  as  soldiers. 
Their  very  central  doctrine  of  being  guided  by  the  "Inner  Light"  mr^kes 
the  arguments  of  both  sides  legitimate  and  right*'  **  *^ '". 

In  dealing  with  such  a  noble  group  of  sincere  religionists  as  the  Quakers 
have  shown  themselves  to  be,  one  is  made  most  anxious  not  to  be  unfair 
in  passing  judgment.  At  best  then  it  may  be  agreed  that  their  record 
in  history  is  an  uncertain  one.  War  at  all  events  has  had  a  most  profound 
influence  on  them.  They  have  had  no  influence  on  war.  To  a  degree, 
therefore,  they  help  to  establish  the  thesis  of  this  study.  And  further, 
they  help  to  make  intelligible  the  life  and  thinking  of  the  only  prominent 
Occidental  who  fearlessly  turned  from  a  military  life  to  what  is  termed 
the  most  extreme  commentary  on  the  life  and  teachings  of  Jesus.  This 
unique  distinction  accrues  to  the  Russian,  Leo  N.  Tolstoy. 

Part  F— Tolstoy 

Tolstoy's  writings  reveal  an  anguished  spirit  in  search  for  God,  finding 
itself  baffled  by  a  ritualistic,  dogmatic  church.  This  church  found,  as  its 
chief  reason  for  existence,  a  whole-hearted  support  of  a  militaristic  gov- 
ernment. Tolstoy  bluntly  asserts  that  "the  church  is  the  worst  enemy  of 
Christianity^'."  He  says  that  he  was  repelled  from  the  church  by  the 
strangeness  of  its  dogmas,  its  approval  of  persecutions,  capital  punish- 
ment and  wars.  For  Christianity  is  nothing  if  it  means  not  love  for  men. 
"To  say  that  we  must  offer  our  cheek  and  love  our  enemy  is  to  express 
the  essence  of  Christianity'^." 

Tolstoy  denounces  fiercely  those  who  deliberately  twist  the  words  and 
commands  of  Jesus  to  mean  the  very  opposite  of  what  they  say.  He 
himself,  however,  is  hard  put  to  it  to  give  a  peace  interpretation  to  the 
New  Testament's  seeming  approval  of  war.  For  instance,  to  explain  why 
there  is  no  clear-cut  statement  against  war,  he  states  that  "Christ  could 
not  have  imagined  it,  and  so  he  could  not  have  forbidden  a  Christian  to 
wage  war Nor  could  one  of  the  apostles,  nor  one  of  the  disciples  of 

72 


War  and  Religion 


Christ  of  the  first  centuries  of  Christianity,  h.ive  imafjined  that  it  was 
necessary  to  forbid  murder,  called  war."  This  strikes  one  as  strange  as 
Tolstoy's  theory  of  pain  "  Because  we  not  only  need  it,  but  also  could  not 
live  if  we  did  not  experience  pain^'."  This  mysticism  into  which  he  dips 
more  than  once^^  is  not  an  asset  of  particular  value  to  his  thought. 

Tolstoy's  reading  of  the  Christ  life  is  disputed  by  nearly  all  men^*  '*. 
And  even  such  a  non-religious  pacifist  as  is  Russell  passes  this  comment : 
"Those  who,  like  Tolstoy,  endeavor  seriously  to  take  the  Gospels  as  a 
guide  to  life  are  compelled  to  regard  the  ignorant  peasant  as  the  best 
type  of  man,  and  to  brush  aside  politcal  questions  by  an  extreme  and 
impractical  anarchism'^."  Tolstoy's  son,  Count  Ilya  Tolstoy,  in  contribut- 
ing articles  to  the  American  press  on  the  revolution  in  Russia  gives  an 
intimate  glimpse  or  two  of  his  father.  He  draws  a  sharp  contrast  between 
the  Bolsheviki  platform  and  a  true  Tolstoyan  one.  He  then  insists  that 
while  his  father  was  unalterably  opposed  to  war,  he  was  stirred,  never- 
theless, to  the  bottom  of  his  soul  on  reading  of  the  Russian  reverses  in  the 
Japanese  war.  When  he  bade  his  son  Andrei  farewell,  as  he  left  for  the 
front,  he  said  to  him :  "  You  know  my  views.  But  I  do  not  condemn  you 
for  going  to  war.  If  I  had  been  in  your  place,  and  had  your  views  of 
life,  I  also  would  have  done  as  you  are  doing^*." 

Here  then  is  a  man,  whose  name  is  written  large  in  contemporary 
annals,  standing  practically  alone  as  a  literal  interpreter  of  the  doctrines 
of  complete  non-resistance  enunciated  by  Jesus.  Nineteen  hundred  years 
of  Christianity  testify  against  his  understanding  of  these  New  Testament 
doctrines.  In  the  entire  history  of  the  peoples  of  the  earth,  there  are 
but  two  other  men  of  his  caliber  with  whom  he  stands :  possibly  Buddha 
and  Lao-Tse.  As  for  the  influence  which  these  spiritual  giants  and  their 
teachings  have  exerted  on  the  course  of  history,  is  it  at  all  an  exaggera- 
tion to  say  that  the  story  of  humanity  would  have  been  the  same,  from 
the  standpoint  of  war  and  religion,  had  they  never  lived  and  taught  their 
theories  of  peace  and  quietism?  Religion  has  always  been  altogether  too 
much  at  home  with  war,  as  these  pages  have  shown,  to  admit  of  any 
hesitation  in  answering  this  question.  One  of  the  latest  exponents  of  the 
usefulness  of  religion  to  war  that  will  be  considered  here  is  Bernhardi,  who 
is  the  very  antipodes  of  Tolstoy. 

Part  G — Bernhardi 

General  Friederich  von  Bernhardi,  in  his  "Germany  and  the  Next 
War,"  (London  1912)  may  be  regarded  as  a  precipitate  of  the  prevailing 
German  thought  of  the  present  day.  As  most  generalizations  are  apt  to 
be  unfair,  this  is  not  putting  matters  in  the  most  liberal  light.  But  if 
it  were  possible  to  strike  an  average  of  the  highest,  the  medium  and  the 
lowest  thinking  of  that  empire,  it  would  appear  that  Bernhardi's  works 
would  almost  equal  the  result.  It  may  be  taken  for  granted  that  the 
preceding  part  on  "Germany  Christian  or  un-Christian"  can  weight  this 
judgment  to  satisfy  individual  opinion. 

Bernhardi  brings  classical  and  German  philosophical  support  for  the 
idea  that  the  dream  of  perpetual  peace  is  characteristic  of  a  weary, 
spiritless  and  exhausted  age^^  He  then  interprets  the  teachings  of  Christ 

73 


War  and  Religion 


and  of  Christianity  as  fully  in  accord  with  the  universal  law  of  struggle. 
"There  never  was  a  religion  more  combative  than  Christianity."  And 
according  to  Christianity,  "we  cannot  disapprove  of  war  in  itself,  but 
must  admit  that  it  is  justified  morally  and  historically^"." 

Of  course  the  war  of  which  he  speaks  does  not  pursue  "unmoral  or 
frivolous  aims,"  but  has  the  highest  moral  value,  for  it  involves  the  honor 
of  the  nation.  He  quotes  ex-President  Roosevelt  at  length  for  the  sup- 
port of  his  contention*^.  That  Germany  may  be  fully  prepared  for  this 
war  he  urges  his  nation  to  eliminate  one  of  its  greatest  weaknesses:  its 
quarrels  over  religious  differences.  He  pleads  for  spiritual  unity  com- 
bined with  "absolute  liberty  of  thought*^."  He  sees  a  gigantic  struggle 
ahead  of  Germany  and  is  greatly  solicitous  that  the  house  be  put  in  social, 
moral  and  religious  order.  The  population  must  be  kept  healthy;  alco- 
holism must  be  fought  with  every  weapon;  and  real  religious  instruction 
must  be  imparted,  for  this  is  of  inestimable  value,  above  all,  for  soldiers. 
Moral  influences  of  religion  should  be  more  prominent  than  formal 
contents^'. 

Bernhardi  thus  furnishes  a  most  perfect  example  to  illustrate  this 
study.  With  him,  war  is  the  all-important  thing.  Religion  is  essential 
for  the  ends  of  war  and  hence  secondary  to  it. 

It  is  worth  while  to  pause  a  moment  to  include  the  somewhat  analogous 
position  to  Bernhardi  which  H.  G.  Wells  has  held  in  England.  There  is 
one  important  difference,  however,  that  in  itself  lends  greatest  emphasis 
and  point  to  this  study.  Before  the  war.  Wells  conceived  it  to  be  his 
special  mission  to  awaken  England  to  the  impending  storm.  If  the 
British  Empire  is  to  survive,  it  must  learn  that  "War  is  no  longer  the 
crude  brawls  of  the  savage  but  the  refined  art  of  the  scientist."  As  for 
religion,  it  was  apparently  of  no  concern  whatsoever  to  Wells.  But  after 
the  war  had  started.  Wells  more  than  overtook  Bernhardi.  Within  these 
three  years  of  the  war,  he  has  had  published  several  books  in  which  the 
thought  that  is  uppermost  is  a  regardfulness  of  the  mystery  of  myster- 
ies that  controls  the  destinies  of  men  and  nations.  Surely  such  a  radical 
change  is  of  most  telling  import  for  this  thesis'*. 

Part  H — Summary 

To  recapitulate  these  three  chapters  dealing  with  "War  and  Religion 
in  Fact"  among  our  Remote  and  Immediate  Ancestors  as  well  as  among 
our  Contemporaries  would  be  a  dreary  performance.  But  the  main  con- 
clusions should  be  briefly  presented. 

War  and  Religion  are  ordinarily  held  as  opposites.  This  study  must 
make  it  evident  that  they  are  most  essentially  connected.  This  connection 
reveals  war  as  the  primary  factor,  religion  being  secondary  to  war.  Such 
relations  between  war  and  religion  have  been  and  are  thoroughgoing, 
having  existed  in  this  way  throughout  all  history. 

This  relationship  extends  from  that  far  distant  day  when  man  had 
struggled  to  an  estate  that  readily  distinguished  him  from  all  other 
creatures,  through  countless  ages,  till  culture  flourished  on  the  Nile  and 
the  Euphrates,  when  it  was  made  abundantly  clear  that  man  used  reli- 
gion for  the  ends  of  war.    In  the  millennia  following  this  Egyptian  stage, 

74 


War  and  Religion 


it  was  fairly  proved  that  where  social  integration  was  most  intense,  and 
hence  fighting  most  frequent,  the  mysterious  powers  surrounding  man 
were  regarded  in  different  ways,  but  always  with  the  hope  that  victory 
would  be  a  regular  gift  for  any  and  all  attention  bestowed  upon  these 
elusive  elemental  powers.  Let  what  terms  be  applied  to  man  and  the 
power  in  the  universe  that  one  will — call  man  civilized,  and  the  power 
God;  speak  of  man  as  cultured  and  his  interpretation  of  mystery  as 
Christian  or  Mohammedan,  the  outstanding  facts  discernible  in  the  past 
are  the  same  that  are  undeniably  present  today.  No  matter  how  one  feels 
or  thinks  about  it,  the  fact  is  incontestably  true  that  war  is  and  has  been 
the  all-engrossing  activity  of  mankind  for  all  time,  and  religion  is  and 
has  been  but  a  minor,  secondary  interest  to  it,  furthering  it,  blessing  it 
and  making  for  its  perpetuation.  This  is  as  undeniable  as  the  fact  that 
volcanoes  destroy  human  as  readily  as  any  other  form  of  life;  and  as 
puzzlingly  true  as  the  common  observation  that  all  catastrophic  events 
engulf  the  just  and  the  righteous  as  well  as  the  unjust  and  the  wicked. 

Whether  this  association  of  religion  with  war  is  a  necessary  and  per- 
petual one,  cannot  be  predicated  on  the  basis  of  an  historical  survey, 
such  as  this,  alone,  But  it  was  thought  vain  to  enter  upon  the  prosecu- 
tion of  the  more  abstruse  psychological  and  biological  implications  with- 
out having  cleared  away  this  readily  accessible  field  of  operation.  Not 
indeed  that  even  these  latter  sciences  can  enter  into  this  sociological 
problem  with  a  signed  and  sealed  verdict  of  eternal  validity.  In  fact, 
even  their  findings  nmst  be  circumscribed  by  human  records;  and  more 
than  one  fork  of  the  road  will  be  encountered,  the  only  help  for  a  decision 
as  to  which  is  the  highway,  being  the  greater  number  of  marks  of  human 
footsteps  on  the  one  than  on  the  other.  Such  fallible  tests  have  more 
than  once  led  to  a  blind  alley.  At  the  same  time,  man  does  not  seem 
ready  to  leap  into  the  dark  with  Gilbert  Murray,  and  with  the  salve  of 
mysticism  cool  the  smarting  bruises  and  cruel  pains  caused  by  dashing 
against  the  immovable  rock  of  the  supreme  will.  Man  thinks  he  is 
responsible  for  things  on  this  earth.  Each  group  holds  the  other  account- 
able for  the  civilization  it  maintains.  And  man  is  ever  ready  to  impeach 
his  fellows  for  hindering  human  progress.  But  if  for  countless  ages  one 
and  the  same  stamp  has  left  indelibly  its  mark  on  man,  no  matter  in  what 
time  or  clime  he  lived;  if  in  two  such  deeply  searching  things  as  war  and 
religion  humanity  reveals  not  the  slightest  difference  from  the  remotest 
past  up  to  the  burning  present,  then  wherein  is  there  room  to  speak  of 
progress;  and  what  can  the  word  responsibility  mean? 

Of  course  no  completely  satisfying  answer  can  be  given  to  these  hoary 
questions;  and  even  the  small  amount  of  attention  to  be  given  them  here 
will  be  restricted  as  far  as  possible  rather  to  the  realm  of  fact  than  of 
theory;  and  in  this  way  linked  with  the  whole  study  on  war  and  religion. 
WTiatever  umbrage  may  have  been  taken  for  permitting  such  writers  as 
Bernhardi  and  Wells  to  speak  for  Contemporaries,  may  be  dispelled  if 
the  previous  statement  made  in  connection  with  them  is  agreed  to,  i.  e., 
that  they  reflect  the  thinking  processes  of  the  average  individual  of  this 
Occidental  world.  At  the  same  time,  if  such  opinions  and  thoughts  are 
to  be  the  criteria  of  progress,  then  the  only  refuge  is  the  confession  of 
helplessness  made  by  Murray.    It  was  for  that  reason  that  the  matter 

75 


War  and  Religion 


was  not  permitted  to  rest  here  but  it  was  deemed  proper  to  append  a  word 
on  progress  that  would  at  the  same  time  give  some  indication  as  to  the 
course  of  evolution  some  of  the  best  thinkers  of  today  predict  in  their 
prognoses  on  human  society.  What  part  will  war  play,  and  what  religion; 
and  will  their  relations  be  the  same  as  they  are  in  the  present  and  have 
been  throughout  all  the  past?  If  the  men  cited  before  were  not  repre- 
sentative enough,  every  effort  would  be  made  in  this  closing  chapter  to 
gather  what  is  generally  conceded  to  be  the  best  thought  of  this  day. 
Even  in  this  procedure,  of  course,  one  is  liable  to  include  a  group  that 
would  not  be  convincing  enough  for  some.  It  is  well  to  repeat,  therefore, 
that  the  selection  was  made  here  with  the  same  principles  in  mind  that 
dominated  all  the  preceding  search  for  authorities:  first  and  foremost 
the  impartial  ends  of  science  devoted  to  the  discovery  of  truth  regardless 
of  consequences,  yet  at  the  same  time  the  tempering  influence  of  genuine 
sympathy  for  the  cause  investigated. 

Another  criticism  against  this  section  dealing  with  Contemporaries 
may  be  anticipated  in  a  moment's  attention  to  the  possible  inquiry  as  to 
why  such  scientifically  and  scholarly  vouched-for  living  movements  as 
Positivism,  Ethical  Culture  and  Spiritualism  were  not  definitely  studied 
as  were  Tolstoyanism  and  the  Quakers.  First  of  all  it  may  be  said  that 
the  testimony  they  would  yield  would  be,  in  effect,  exactly  the  same  as 
that  which  marked  all  religions  in  their  relations  to  war;  then  there  is 
more  or  less  of  the  spirit  of  the  controversial  in  treating  of  such  move- 
ments under  the  head  of  religion,  though  the  definition  employed  in  this 
work  readily  must  define  them  as  such ;  and  finally,  at  the  risk  of  being 
misunderstood,  it  was  felt  that  in  a  work  such  as  this,  devoted  to  great 
world  movements  that  have  held  the  populations  of  the  earth  in  their 
sway  for  thousands  of  years — such  limited  groups  were  of  too  ephemeral 
a  nature  to  warrant  any  detailed  study  here.  Needless  to  say,  it  is  more 
than  granted  that  their  sponsors  are  men  of  just  renown;  and  the  ideas 
propagated  worthy  of  most  serious  attention. 

Because  the  closing  chapter  will  yield  much  space  to  that  glorious 
monument  of  living  scholarship,  "The  Cambridge  Modern  History;" 
which  with  its  companion  work  "The  Cambridge  Medieval  History," 
has  veritably  been  the  backbone  of  an  important  part  of  this  study,  the 
promised  word  regarding  its  extensive  use  may  as  well  be  spoken  here  as 
anywhere  else. 

For  argument  sake,  at  least,  it  may  be  agreed,  that  man  shows  himself 
pre-eminently  emotional  when  it  comes  to  discussing  issues  of  war  and 
religion.  Because  of  this,  the  worth  of  most  historical  documents  has 
been  vitiated.  This  was  passingly  referred  to  at  the  beginning  of  chapter 
two.  The  great  problem,  therefore,  in  gathering  witnesses  and  testimony 
for  this  case  of  war  and  religion  throughout  human  history,  was  to  find 
men  of  a  type,  who  wrote  in  such  a  detached  way,  that  both  they  and 
their  words  would  pass  universal  muster.  To  corral  a  large  number  of 
individuals  and  rehearse  their  own  particular  interpretations  of  all 
nations  and  peoples  of  all  times  would  mean  confusion  in  a  mass  of  learn- 
ing. In  a  study  such  as  this,  that  isolated  two  activities  of  humanity  the 
danger  was  ever  too  imminent  of  reading  things  into  texts  that  were 
already  colored  by  egoistic  life-philosophy,  and  individualistic  interpre- 

76 


War  and  Rclij^ion 


tation  of  man's  story  past  and  present.  The  Cambridge  Histories  were 
designed  to  eliminate  the  ego  and  to  present  as  unbiasedly  as  possible 
the  fact.  The  contributors  were  chosen  because  they  would  see  events,  not 
through  nationalistic  glasses,  but  through  the  clear  air  of  the  untamed 
mountain  tops  whence  long-distance  views  could  be  secured;  whence 
consciousness  of  state  lines  and  boundaries  had  been  eliminated,  and  the 
rivulets  and  streams  and  rivers  of  humanity  could  be  leisurely  surveyed 
and  calmly  mapped,  aside  from  questions  of  civilization  and  of  progress. 
But  in  addition  to  this  most  valuable  method  of  having  speciahsts 
treat  of  the  particular  period  or  individual  or  movement  of  which  they 
had  humbly  made  a  life-study,  and  the  consequent  fairness  of  view  which 
the  overlapping  of  opinions  and  their  occasional  clashing  afforded,  the 
supremely  helpful  contribution  of  these  weighty  volumes  consisted  in 
the  fact  that  the  scientific,  scholarly  Churchmen  of  England  co-operated 
in  spirit  and  in  letter  to  make  the  work  possible;  and  this  aid  meant 
everything  in  using  the  labors  of  these  scholars  in  such  a  study  as  this  on 
war  and  religion.  The  average  scientist  of  today  does  not  take  religion 
seriously,  as  is  abundantly  proved  in  the  statistical  study  of  Leuba.  His 
interest  in  it  is  merely  scientific;  and  it  may  be  his  zeal  for  science  that 
tempts  him  at  times  to  overshoot  the  mark  and  treat  the  religionist  past 
or  present  with  contempt.  But  is  not  the  very  essence  of  pure  science 
the  elimination  of  all  bias  and  prejudice,  and  at  the  same  time  the  identi- 
cally regardful  attitude  to  one  and  all  of  the  facts  of  life;  whether  a  fact 
be  the  belief  of  an  individual,  or  of  a  group,  in  a  piece  of  stone  as  the 
source  of  all  the  power  and  well-being  of  it;  or  whether  a  fact  be  the  micro- 
scopic germ  that  is  handled  with  all  delicate  care  and  solicitude  by  the 
laboratorist?  It  matters  not  what  the  religious  belief  may  be,  it  is  a 
most  precious  fact  for  understanding  man's  history;  and  the  more  de- 
tached and  scientific  the  student  is,  the  more  will  he  marvel  how  the 
least  developed  intellect  as  well  as  the  greatest,  turns  at  times,  if  not 
regularly,  to  the  mystery  at  the  heart  of  things;  and  from  his  attitude  to 
it  is  able  to  continue  as  part  of  the  stream  of  life,  supported  by  his  faith 
in  the  unknown  and  unknowable.  Here  indeed  has  been  presented  the 
millennia-old  record  of  man,  battling  against  his  fellow  men,  as  part  of 
his  struggle  for  existence  and  survival;  and  the  help  he  continuously  or 
ultimately  found  to  sustain  him,  to  spur  him  on,  to  hope  for  victory,  has 
come  from  his  profession  of  faith  in  the  blessings  that  were  given  his  arms 
by  the  powers  he  recognized  as  controlling  affairs.  There  is  no  room  to 
speak  here  of  delusions;  for  if  warfare  is  a  reality,  equally  so  is  the  parallel 
record  of  religious  faith,  of  the  attitude  to  mystery,  varying  in  form,  but 
in  essence  one.  Many  scientists  become  impatient  with  man  religious 
because  they  have  ceased  to  or  never  did  feel  the  call  of  mystery  as  their 
fellow  men  have.  A  few  on  the  other  hand  see  more  in  religion  than  there 
actually  is.  It  is  the  unusual  combination  of  the  sincere  scientist,  and 
either  the  true  religionist  or  fair  appraiser  of  religious  phenomena,  that  is 
found  in  these  Cambridge  studies  in  history.  WTien,  therefore,  the  com- 
mon verdict  rendered  in  its  volumes  is  that  war  is  the  primary  factor  and 
religion  links  itself  closely  to  war  for  the  support  of  the  political  policies 
of  the  ruling  group,  one  feels  sure  that  the  judgment  is  one  of  truth;  and 
is  a  generalization  that  can  safely  be  employed  for  further  research. 

77 


War  and  Religion 


Much,  then,  of  the  material  for  a  discussion  of  progress  and  a  glimpse 
into  the  future  will  be  based  on  the  twelfth  volume  of  the  Cambridge 
Modern  History;  and  it  may  be  then  safe  to  assert  that  the  proper  bear- 
ings have  been  secured  to  travel  from  this  historical  outline  of  humanity's 
attitude  to  war  and  religion,  through  the  more  devious  roads  of  the  psy- 
chological and  biological  sciences. 


78 


V.  Conclusions 

The  opening  chapter  of  the  last,  the  twelfth,  volume  of  the  Cambridge 
Modern  Historj',  which  appeared  in  1910  (New  York)  gives  that  large 
free  view  of  world-history  so  characteristic  of  the  entire  work.  The  sub- 
jugation by  the  European  powers  of  the  rest  of  the  world  which  began  in 
the  sixteenth  century,  reaches  its  apogee  at  the  opening  of  this  twentieth 
century  when  only  those  parts  of  the  earth  have  escaped  European  rule 
through  "the  establishment  of  strong  and  stable  governments  and  by 
the  adoption  at  any  rate  of  European  military  arts"  and  all  other  agen- 
cies "necessary  to  military  efficiency.  The  whole  world  is  now  the  sphere 
of  European  activity.  .  . "  "It  is  idle  to  censure  the  inevitable  or  to  pass 
judgment  upon  destiny ;  the  European  nations  have  resembled  other  con- 
quering races  in  their  brutality,  violence,  and  rapacity;  this  exotic  rule 
has  been  seen  perhaps  at  its  worst  in  the  valley  of  the  Congo,  at  its  best 

in  the  recent  government  of  India,  and  in  Egypt; religious  missions 

have  been  active,  but  on  the  whole  the  beneJBts  conferred  have  been 

rathermaterial  than  moral," "but  it  is  perhaps  too  soon  to  cast  the 

balance  and  to  set  the  advantages  against  the  evils  of  European  rule.  It  is 
enough  to  note  the  fact  that  in  the  world-wide  struggle  for  life,  wealth 
and  power,  the  Europeans  have  for  the  moment  proved  their  indisputable 
dominance;  three  quarters  of  the  globe  have  come  under  their  sway;  and 
the  independence  of  the  remainder  is  held  by  a  precarious  tenure*." 

The  peace  which  Europe  has  enjoyed  since  1871  is  called  an  armed 
peace.  The  opinion  is  ventured  that  the  tremendous  military  equipment 
and  the  "non-moral,  sordid"  world  of  finance  are  the  powers  that  are 
making  for  peace.  And  is  it  not  strange  that  this  peace  period  is  marked 
by  a  loss  in  the  efficacy  of  the  appeal  of  religion^  ^^?  There  is  indeed  much 
warfare  but  it  is  extra-European  to  the  greatest  extent. 

As  the  account  of  those  military  campaigns  is  of  only  minor  value  now, 
it  is  best  to  take  a  glimpse  at  the  close  of  this  encyclopedic  modern  his- 
tory mainly  because  much  attention  is  given  to  this  very  problem  of  war 
and  religion. 

It  is  frankly  stated  that  "  There  is  no  historical  ground  for  the  assump- 
tion sometimes  made  by  recent  publicists  that  Christian  doctrine,  or  to 
speak  more  exactly,  the  teaching  of  any  Church  that  has  ever  enjoyed 
considerable  authority,  condemns  war  in  itself  more  than  any  other  of 
the  evils  incident  to  a  sinful  world."  In  fact,  under  certain  conditions, 
warfare  was  regarded  as  meritorious.  But  this  is  now  a  twice-told  tale. 
Not  religion,  but  the  "Law  of  Nations"  is  placed  in  the  foreground  as  the 
hope  of  the  world  for  permanent  peace.  And  the  best  that  can  be  said  for 
the  "Law  of  Nations"  is  that  it  is  "founded  upon  justice,  equity,  con- 
venience, and  the  reason  of  the  thing,  and  confirmed  by  long  usage."  It 
is  said  that  the  last  half  century  has  witnessed  the  beginning  of  "serious 
and  concerted  endeavor  to  make  the  avoidance  of  war  easier  and  to 
mitigate  its  evils  when  it  occurs.  The  rate  of  progress  is  not  such  as  to 
content  the  enthusiasts  for  peace,  but  it  appears  to  be  an  increasing 
rate'." 

79 


War  and  Religion 


Of  course  it  is  only  right  to  emphasize  the  fact  that  these  estimates  and 
forecasts  were  printed  in  a  book  that  appeared  a  year  or  two  before  the 
war  began.  The  unsatisfying  feeling  they  leave  is  intensified  by  reading 
the  books  which  the  leaders  of  world-thought,  the  men  of  vision  of  today 
have  written  during  the  course  of  the  war  itself. 

Hobhouse,  the  distinguished  English  thinker  had  afforded  some 
hesitating  optimism  in  his  "Morals  in  Evolution."  But  this  has  largely 
been  supplanted  by  his  recent  "Questions  of  War  and  Peace."  (London 
1916.)  After  much  fanciful  speculation  on  ethical  theories,  he  considers 
hard  facts.  He  finds  that  the  future  of  England  and  all  states  once 
opposed  to  the  German  ideal  are  now  set  upon  German  lines.  " .  .  .  .  war 
must  remain  the  keynote  of  its  life.  This  is,  I  suppose,  a  conceivable 
forecast  of  the  political  future."  But  this  means  re-barbarization.  This 
must  be  avoided,  but  no  aid  may  be  expected  from  humanitarian  ethics 
or  the  peaceful  tendencies  of  commerce.  He  puts  his  trust,  strange  to 
say,  in  the  importance  of  the  national  entity,  and  draws  this  peculiar, 
fine  distinction:  "The  ideal  of  the  future  must  be  not  cosmopolitanism 
but  internationalism."  But  this  internationalism  is  still  in  the  distance. 
For  there  is  no  trust  to  be  placed  in  Germany.  For  the  present  and  the 
future,  the  existing  alliance  should  be  turned  into  a  permanent  federa- 
tion, and  only  then  "through  a  federation  of  Allies  towards  the  ultimate 
ideal  of  a  united  Europe^." 

Much  more  hopeless  than  this  picture  of  Hobhouse  of  the  days  to  be, 
is  given  by  Georg  Brandes  in  his  "The  World  at  War."  He  regards  the 
rivalry  between  England  and  Germany  as  the  cause  of  the  war.  He  is 
very  bitter  against  religion.  And  the  press  of  all  countries  has  stimu- 
lated national  hatred  to  such  a  degree  "that  one  can  scarcely  see  how  co- 
operation among  the  nations  will  be  possible  within  the  next  dozen  years." 
"The  clergy  in  all  countries  have  appeared  as  the  most  passionate 
nationalists'."  He  ridicules  the  notion  that  this  is  the  last  wa^  ^. 

His  conviction  that  from  the  seeds  of  this  war  must  develop  other  wars 
brings  him  to  his  most  despairing  thought.  He  fears  that  Europe  will 
fall  into  such  an  exhausted  condition  that  it  will  become  a  most  easy  prey 
for  Japan*".  While  he  is  sure  that  the  future  holds  this  gloomy  prospect, 
it  is  not  his  belief  that  humanity  will  never  rid  itself  of  war.  But  Cher- 
bulliez's  calculation  that  from  1500  B.  C.  until  1860  A.  D.,  about  eight 
thousand  peace  treaties  had  been  signed,  with  the  supposition  that  each 
one  meant  permanent  peace  but  lasted  on  an  average,  only  two  years, 
makes  Brandes  positive  that  the  peace  methods  used  hitherto  will  not 
bring  the  nations  nearer  their  goal". 

He  gives  in  a  nutshell  the  history  of  war  and  religion,  similar  to  that 
given  by  Spencer,  as  noted  in  chapter  one.  At  the  same  time  he  blames 
religion  for  the  wars  of  the  past.  But  facts  will  not  bear  him  out  in  this. 
Religion  has  been  but  the  able  second  to  the  plans  and  plots  of  the  ruling 
groups.  At  all  events,  he  finds  that  national  madness  has  now  superseded 
religion  as  the  cause  of  war.  His  closing  thoughts  are  that  "Europe  is 
committing  hari-kari  for  the  benefit  of  Japan;"  that  the  longer  this  war 
lasts  the  shorter  the  peace  will  be*^  *^  ";  and  he  anticipates  a  wild,  raving 
revolution  after  the  war,  made  by  women  and  cripples,  as  "there  will 
scarcely  be  enough  men  left."  This  revolution  "will  level  to  the  ground 

80 


War  and  Relif?ion 


the  few  remnants  of  a  higher  intellectual  civilization  which  the  war  may 
have  spared'*  '^." 

Romain  Holland  also  inveighs  against  religion.  He  says  that  "The 
great  trick  is  to  extract  from  any  given  idea  its  precise  contrary — war 
from  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount."  But  somewhat  paradoxically  he  writes 
elsewhere:  "There  is  not  one  amongst  the  leaders  of  thought  in  each 
country  who  does  not  proclaim  with  conviction  that  the  cause  of  his 
people  is  the  cause  of  God,  the  cause  of  liberty  and  of  human  progress. 
And  I,  too,  proclaim  it"." 

The  name  of  Sir  Oliver  Lodge  commands  world-wide  attention.  One 
eagerly  anticipates  reading  his  hook:  "The  War  and  After,"  published 
shortly  after  the  war  broke  out.  But  it  proves  as  disappointing  as  the 
war  book  of  the  well-known  French  scholar,  Le  Bon,  on  the  "Psychology 
of  the  Great  War." 

Lodge's  book  is  uniquely  orthodox  Christian,  and,  of  course,  does  not 
neglect  spiritualism.  The  Germans  are  savages'^  while  England  and  its 
allies  are  the  champions  of  Christendom.  If  the  Germans  conquer, 
death  is  to  be  preferred  to  their  domination'^.  He  thinks  that  "Much  of 
the  world  is  not  yet  completely  beyond  the  tooth  and  claw  period  of  ani- 
mal existence^"."  But  he  cannot  insist  enough  upon  stating  that  "The 
cause  of  the  Nation  is  now  the  cause  of  Christ^'."  His  forcasts  are  so 
hazy  and  his  theory  of  progress  so  platitudinous  that  one  may  hurry  on 
to  Le  Bon22  ^. 

Le  Bon  also  gives  himself  over  to  bitter  diatribes  against  the  enemy. 
But  most  surprising  is  the  space  he  yields  to  the  exaltation  of  patriotism. 
He  defines  it  as  "the  heritage  from  the  dead,  one  of  thosesupreme  forces 
which  are  created  by  long  ancestral  accumulations,  and  whose  strength 
is  revealed  at  critical  moments-*." 

He  appears  to  incline  to  the  view  that  there  will  always  be  war,  for 
war  is  the  founder  of  civilizations  but  peace  destroys  them.  At  the  same 
time  he  fears  that  war  will  end  only  in  the  ruin  of  the  belligerents.  He 
revolts  at  the  thought  of  a  future  of  savage  strife  "broken  only  by  stern 
intervals  of  gloomy  barrack  life."  He  pins  his  faith  on  science  and  on  will 
power.  "Conquer  or  die, but  never  yield!"  "Neither  Nature, nor  man, 
nor  fate  itself,  can  withstand  a  strong  and  steadfast  wilP." 

In  a  word,  Le  Bon's  work  represents  a  strange  combination  of  thehazi- 
ness  of  Lodge  and  the  gloominess  of  Brandes.  A  group  of  leading  Ameri- 
can thinkers  contemplates  a  future  of  war  but  in  the  buoyant  spirit  of  a 
people  that  wants  to  measure  its  untried  strength. 

Hart,  Seligman  and  Giddings  contributed  to  a  volume  entitled: 
"Problems  of  Readjustment  After  the  W^ar,"  published  in  1915.  Hart 
recognizes  that  "war  has  been  the  enemy  of  republics  in  all  ages."  If 
the  United  States  desires  to  maintain  democracy,  it  must  be  capable  of 
keeping  out  hostile  armies.  "  It  is  a  crime  which  ought  to  be  punishable 
by  confinement  in  a  state's  prison,  for  the  American  people  to  rely  upon 
untrained  volunteers  for  future  wars^®."  Seligman,  of  course,  puts  an 
economic  interpretation  upon  the  whole  matter.  Capitalism  decrees  at 
once  more  wars  and  an  ultimate  peace-^.  Giddings  confesses  uncertainty 
as  to  whether  war  or  peace  in  the  long  run  plays  the  larger  part  in  social 
selection^.  The  last  word  in  the  book  is  given  to  G.  G.  Wilson,  who  finds 

81 


War  and  Religion 


no  satisfactory  criterion  "for  measuring  what  is  called  civilization  unless 
it  be,  as  some  claim,  the  military  power^^." 

Of  course,  this  list  could  be  prolonged  almost  indefinitely ;  for  not  only 
are  these  eminent  men  themselves  continually  re-editing  and  revising 
their  opinions  as  the  phases  of  the  struggle  vary  from  time  to  time,  but 
other  individuals  are  looming  large  on  the  horizon  whose  speculations  are 
very  worth  while,  more  especially  for  a  treatise  on  the  future  of  war  and 
religion  and  on  a  theory  of  progress.  13ut  when  all  is  said  and  done,  the 
whole  resolves  itself  into  a  feeble  beating  of  wings  after  a  wearisome  flight; 
for  the  riddle  of  the  future  remains  a  riddle;  and  the  criteria  of  progress 
are  utterly  conditioned  by  the  environmental  factors  surrounding  the 
proponents.  To  glance  again  at  Durkheim  would  be  beside  the  mark.  To 
rehearse  Kellogg's  interesting  forecasts  in  his  "Beyond  War,"  might  be 
construed  as  unfair  in  the  light  of  his  activities  in  the  present  war"**. 
Neither  need  one  delay  for  Jevons'  oft-iterated  phrase  that  evolution 
does  not  mean  progress;  nor  for  Spencer's  faith  in  "the  industrial  type 
which  is  higher  because  in  that  state  of  permanent  peace  to  which  civili- 
zation is  tending,  it  subserves  individual  welfare  better  than  the  militant 
type''."  And  with  Thomas,  one  need  not  lament  now  that  the  struggle 
for  existence  has  been  mitigated*^.  In  the  light  of  these  chilling  words  of 
cold  science,  even  Tolstoy's  rosy  religious  faith  that  "for  the  man  who 
lives  according  to  his  law  there  is  no  death  and  suffering"  turns  grey  and 
dark  as  the  fleeting  glory  of  a  rich  sunset  yields  to  the  cold,  pale  starlight. 
In  fact,  a  multiplication  of  opinions  is  but  a  process  of  being  pulled  hither 
and  yon,  with  science  calmly  anticipating  war  and  the  progress  it  brings, 
and  religion  feverishly  talking  of  peace,  when  the  final  war,  Armageddon, 
will  have  been  fought  in  the  cause  of  right  and  peace,  and  have  been  won. 
So  with  a  moment  or  two  devoted  to  Thomson  and  Russell,  a  halt  will 
be  called  on  this  peering  into  the  future  and  theorizing  on  progress. 

Thomson  reviews  the  Darwinian  theory  of  "struggle  for  existence"  and 
"natural  selection"  with  an  eye  on  the  concept:  "mutual  aid."  He  is  not 
sure  but  that  in  modern  times  the  "  issue  of  the  conflict  often  depends  very 
largely  on  length  of  purse  and  up-to-dateness  of  equipment,  and  only  to 
a  slight  extent  on  the  organic  qualities  of  the  race  or  people." 

And  the  outcome  of  his  speculations  leaves  one  quite  at  sea  as  regards 
war;  as  for  religion,  it  surely  has  already  been  noted  that  Leuba's  con- 
clusions can  find  abundant  verification  among  the  several  authorities  here 
cited,  excepting  Lodge  alone.  Such  vague  terms  as  ethical  outlook,  moral 
values,  right  and  justice  may  be  included  in  the  mental  processes  of  these 
thoroughly- trained  minds  wrestling  with  the  problems  of  life,  but  reli- 
gion or  God  as  usually  and  formally  regarded  finds  no  room  in  their 
present  interests;  and  as  for  the  future,  if  the  concept  progress  connotes 
anything  at  all,  its  most  perfect  synonj'm  for  the  future  as  it  is  for  the 
present,  in  their  opinion,  is  the  word  science.  If  the  world  of  thought  is 
orbital  in  its  movement,  then  a  good  illustration  of  it  is  seen  in  the  rela- 
tions between  war  and  religion.  For  there  was  war  before  there  was 
religion;  and  when  religion  arose,  it  was  and  has  been  greatly  monopo- 
lized by  war;  and  now  that  science  has  shaken  itself  almost  completely 
free  of  religion,  its  giant  strength  is  harnessed  to  war  and  a  future  is 
probable,  as  far  as  science  is  concerned,  of  warfare  once  again  without 

82 


War  and  Religion 


religion.  But  the  definition  of  religion  used  in  these  pages  precludes  the 
apparent  possibility  of  the  disappearance  of  religion;  for  even  the  ultra- 
materialistic  interpretation  of  the  universe,  called  the  mechanistic,  is 
necessarily  an  attitude  to  mystery;  and  it  is  as  much  religious  as  the  first 
stumbling  thoughts  of  remotest  man,  whether  aroused  teratistically,  or 
by  the  life  and  death  of  his  leader;  or  any  other  way.  But  this  is  antici- 
pating the  general  conclusions.    So  to  Thomson's  summary. 

"We  admit  that  wars  have  been  necessary  and  righteous — especially 
necessary — and  that  they  may  be  so  still,  but  this  opinion  does  not  affect 
the  fact  that  prolonged  war  in  which  a  nation  takes  part  is  bound  to 
impoverish  the  breed,  since  the  character  of  the  breed  always  depends  on 
the  men  who  are  left.  How  else  can  we  understand  what  has  happened 
so  often,  that  an  older  civilization  is  overthrown  by  another  less  evolved? 
The  only  thing  a  nation  dies  of  is  lack  of  men;  and  is  there  not  disquieting 
evidence  of  the  increase  of  incapaliles?  It  is  said  that  we  cannot  relax 
one  spine  of  our  national  belligerence,  since  we  must,  at  all  costs,  uphold 
our  national  supremacy,  having  all  these  teeming  millions  to  feed.  But 
is  this  not,  in  part  at  least,  a  vicious  circle?"  But  he  feels  that  social 
improvement  would  solve  many  difliculties.  As  for  courage,  daring  and 
chivalry,  the  constructive  work  of  explorers  and  scientists  ought  to  keep 
alive  these  qualities,  until  now  so  dependent  upon  war.  Yet,  while  pro- 
claiming his  disbelief  in  the  biological  value  of  war,  he  will  not  yield  to  any- 
one in  his  appreciation  of  the  soldier's  qualities.  The  general  impression 
then  of  this  pre-war  study  of  Darwinism  is  not  dissimilar  to  the  residuum 
of  the  "mutual  aid"  idea.  Kropotkin  did  not  refuse  to  recognize  the 
struggle  element  in  life;  he  simply  did  not  want  it  to  be  considered  the 
whole  of  life.  Yet  the  very  idea  of  "mutual  aid  "  has  implicit  in  it  the  idea 
of  struggle;  for  aid  is  unnecessary  unless  there  is  struggle.  Further,  if 
the  commonalty  were  capable  of  the  zeal  and  zest  of  the  explorer  in  travel 
and  science,  there  might  be  point  to  the  plan  of  turning  the  "excitement" 
impluse  into  constructive  rather  than  destructive  channels.  And  at  that, 
it  remains  to  be  shown  that  these  men  of  science  and  exploration  find 
such  complete  satisfaction  in  their  constructive  pursuits,  that  when  wars 
break  out,  they  refuse  to  turn  from  their  vocations  for  the  sake  of  the 
"minor"  interests  of  destruction.  This  study  limits  itself  to  the  relations 
between  war  and  religion.  But  in  the  course  of  its  preparation,  more  than 
one  bit  of  evidence  was  uncovered  showing  that  war  was  the  master 
not  only  of  religion  but  of  many  other  forms  of  human  thought  and 
action. 

But  at  length  to  Russell.  While  this  clear,  vigorous  and  frank  thinker 
concerns  himself  directly  with  the  problem  of  this  present  war,  as  is 
abundantly  evident  in  the  titles  he  chose  for  the  notable  books  he  has 
written  in  the  last  two  years:  "Justice  in  War-Time"  and  "Why  Men 
Fight,"  one  does  not  rise  from  the  reading  of  his  works  with  any  greater 
certainty  of  human  progress  and  an  idealistic  future  than  all  the  fore- 
going writers  afford.  It  is  stimulating  to  gather  his  thoughts;  it  is 
encouraging  to  breathe  in  from  every  page  his  spirit  of  candor,  of  love  for 
the  truth  and  bravery  in  expressing  it  as  it  appears  to  him.  But  when 
boiled  down  to  real  essentials,  there  is  not  so  much  to  choose  between  him 
and  Brandes  who  summed  up  his  whole  message  in  his  forbidding  title: 

83 


War  and  Religion 


"The  World  at  War"  surpassed  in  its  melancholy  spirit  by  Zangwill's: 
"The  War  for  the  World." 

Russell's  "Justice  in  War-Time"  may  represent  his  first  reactions  to 
the  conflict  for  it  appeared  in  1916.  It  is  tinged  with  Tolstoyan  ideals  of 
non-resistance  but  based  on  practical  rather  than  on  religious  grounds. 
While  the  book  is  alive  with  spirituality,  religion  is  generally  ignored.  It 
is  the  downfall  of  science  that  wounds  him  to  the  quick.  "The  degrada- 
tion of  science  from  its  high  function  in  ameliorating  the  lot  of  man  is  one 
of  the  most  painful  aspects  of  this  war.  Knowledge  with  elevation  of 
mind  is  the  chief  instrument  of  human  progress;  knowledgew  ithout 
elevation  of  mind  easily  becomes  devilish,  and  increases  the  wounds 
which  man  inflicts  on  man." 

But  he  cannot  believe  that  war  is  under  all  circumstances  a  crime.  He 
divides  wars  into  four  classes,  of  which  one,  "Wars  of  Prestige,"  is  never 
justified.  At  the  same  time  he  pleads  for  experimenting  with  the  idea  of 
non-resistance.  Not  unlike  Thomson,  he  would  replace  the  pride  of 
military  glory  with  a  nobler  pride.  Nevertheless  he  thinks  the  majority 
of  mankind  is  right  in  rejecting  Quaker  or  Tolstoyan  doctrines.  In  a 
somewhat  despairing  spirit,  he  agrees  that  the  blood  lust  is  instinctive. 
His  thinking,  therefore,  becomes  quite  tenuous  when  he  would  solve  the 
problem  thus:  "But  war  will  only  end  after  a  great  labor  has  been  per- 
formed in  altering  men's  moral  ideals,  directing  them  to  the  good  of  all 
mankind,  and  not  only  of  the  separate  nations  into  which  men  happen  to 
have  been  born."  With  the  historian  Meyer,  and  with  English  professors, 
he  sees  the  end  of  the  era  of  attempts  at  international  friendship;  the 
next  century  will  be  marked  with  "unconquerable  opposition  and  embit- 
tered hate  between  England  and  Germany."  It  means  nothing  less  than 
the  decline  of  modern  civilization.  Therefore  Russell  cries  out:  "Yet  still 
our  newspapers,  parsons,  and  professors  prate  of  the  ennobling  influence 
of  war'*." 

The  note  which  he  strikes  in  his  later  book:  "Why  Men  Fight,"  only 
intensifies  the  bitterness,  the  hopelessness  and  mirage-like  hopefulness 
and  faith  that  were  found  in  the  preceding  work.  He  sees  that  "war  is 
one  of  the  most  permanent  institutions  of  all  free  communities."  Of 
William  James'  "Moral  Equivalent  of  War,"  he  sadly  says:  "But  his 
solution  is  not  adequate;  perhaps  no  adequate  solution  is  possible."  It  is 
to  be  feared  that  his  own  treatment  of  the  problem  must  have  this  same 
judgment  passed  upon  it. 

In  a  very  vague  way,  he  turns  more  to  the  consolations  of  religion  in 
this  volume.  Life  to  be  fully  human  must  serve  an  end  impersonal  and 
above  mankind,  "such  as  God,  truth  or  beauty."  Even  if  this  eternal 
world  is  only  of  our  imagining,  it  is  the  sole  source  of  strength  and  peace. 
He  speaks  of  it  in  terms  of  Spinoza  as  "the  intellectual  love  of  God.  To 
those  who  have  once  known  it,  it  is  the  key  of  wisdom. 

"Those  who  are  to  begin  the  regeneration  of  the  world  must  face 
loneliness,  opposition,  poverty,  obloquy.  They  must  be  able  to  live  by 
truth  and  love,  with  a  rational  unconquerable  hope;  they  must  be  honest 
and  wise,  fearless,  and  guided  by  a  consistent  purpose." 

With  all  this  uncertainty  and  indefiniteness  characterizing  the  leading 
intellectual  lights  of  this  generation ;  with  all  of  them  admitting  that  war 

84 


War  and  Religion 


under  certain  circumstances  is  justifiable;  with  practically  no  attention 
given  to  religion  other  than  pitiless  scoffing  at  it  for  being  such  a  fervent 
handmaiden  of  war  and  such  a  consistent  professor,  all  the  while,  of 
peace;  with  the  incipient  conviction  that  Europe  is  making  a  shambles 
of  its  heritage  to  be  trod  underfoot  by  some  alien  folk;  with  full  recog- 
nition of  the  fighting  impulse  or  instinct,  yet  most  hazy  suggestions  of 
substitutes,  other  than  war,  to  absorb  this  blood-lust  energy;  one  is  not 
surprised  if  the  generations  turn  from  the  men  of  knowledge,  with  their 
technical  language,  to  the  men  of  life  with  their  oflSce-vocabulary  inter- 
pretation of  war  as  the  struggle  for  existence,  and  with  their  churchly 
benediction  of  God's  blessing  on  the  cause  which  the  rulers  of  the  land 
declare  to  be  righteous.  If  such  be  the  people's  guides  and  saints,  then 
there  is  no  distinction  accruing  to  the  thousand  and  one  popular  prophets 
loudly  talking  of  the  next  war.  It  is  as  inevitable  as  everyone  said  this 
one  was,  after  it  happened;  and  the  same  seers  of  the  populace  said  before 
it  happened.  If,  therefore,  war  is  a  criterion  of  progress  then  there  will 
be  progress.  And  if  war  needs  religion  in  the  future,  there  will  be  reli- 
gion in  the  future  to  support  war  as  it  has  done  so  unfailingly  in  the  past. 
At  all  events,  the  entire  range  of  history  proves  that  there  has  been  and 
is  nothing  so  universal  among  men  as  warring;  and  among  the  leaders  of 
men,  there  are  many  more  who  believe  that  this  battling  is  right  and 
necessary  than  believe  that  an  evolution  wrought  in  peace  would  have 
brought  man  as  far  if  not  further  than  the  war-process  has  accomplished. 

Life  then  as  lived  up  to  the  present  gives  full  warrant  for  the  assertion 
that  war  is  a  good  thing.  Humanity  has  evolved  with  a  constant  accom- 
paniment of  war;  and  if  it  is  believed  that  the  present  is  markedly  pro- 
gressive over  the  past,  and  the  past  over  the  remote  past,  then  to  war 
belongs  the  credit,  for  it  has  been  and  is  the  most  distinctive,  the  most 
continuous,  the  most  thought-inciting  and  invention-making  factor 
known  to  man.  It  is  a  heritage  from  pre-humans,  the  so-called  animals 
and  less  complex  creatures  in  general.  Among  all  of  these  the  war 
struggle  is  an  admitted  agent  making  for  the  swiftest  course  to  ever 
greater  complexity  of  organism  and  functioning,  with  all  apologies  to  the 
"mutual  aid"  school  of  thought.  As  for  man,  Russell  again  most  tersely 
puts  it  in  saying:  " But  the  citizens  whom  every  nation  honors  most  are 
those  who  have  killed  the  greatest  number  of  foreigners'^."  Such  being 
the  criterion  of  progress,  there  is  and  always  has  been  abundant  proof 
that  the  world  is  progressing;  and  if  the  opinion  of  all  men,  from  the 
meanest-functioning  mind,  up  through  all  gradations  of  intellect,  to  the 
scholars  who  sit  on  the  watch  towers  of  universal  evolution,  are  all  a  unit 
in  looking  for  future  wars,  if  this  uniform  opinion  means  anything,  it 
makes  sure  that  the  future  will  be  marked  by  warfare  and  hence  by 
progress. 

And  what  of  religion?  At  first  blush  the  case  looks  very  poor.  But  the 
present  concern  is  not  what  religion  teaches  but  what  it  does.  This  whole 
survey  of  the  past  gave  but  little  space  to  the  three  or  four  individual 
religious  teachers  who  taught  quietism  and  peace.  Men  lived  and  worked 
and  fought  in  the  spirit  of  their  religion  and  that  is  the  religion  that  has 
counted.  Either  horn  of  the  dilemma,  that  religion  appears  to  be  in,  may 
be  readily  cut  away,  leaving  religion  free  for  a  war  or  peace  evolution.    If 

86 


War  and  Religion 


war  is  primary  and  religion  secondary  as  this  account  has  abundantly 
shown  it  to  be,  then  there  is  more  of  the  specious  in  the  widespread  argu- 
ment of  those  who  contend  that  religion  has  never  been  tried.  It  has 
never  been  first  nor  ever  been  put  first.  It  has  been  secondary  and 
nothing  else;  and  as  such  did  what  it  was  compelled  to  do.  Now  it  was 
shown  from  history  that  warfare  is  the  right,  the  good  and  the  progress- 
ive thing  for  this  earth.  Therefore,  when  religion  blessed  warfare  it  was 
doing  nothing  but  the  right  thing;  for  its  aim  is  to  further  the  right  and 
the  good ;  and  the  leaders  in  war  declared  that  their  cause  was  a  righteous 
cause  and  that  they  were  deserving  of  God's  blessing.  Men,  therefore, 
are  unjust  in  ridiculing  religion  for  coming  to  the  support  of  war.  As  far 
as  the  inconsistency  of  yearning  for  peace  and  believing  in  the  ultimate 
triumph  of  peace  is  concerned,  there  again  the  religious  leaders  only  show 
a  seconding  of  the  war  leaders;  for  the  latter  almost  invariably  declare 
that  the  war  they  are  waging  is  to  be  the  last  war,  and  is  fought  only  to 
usher  in  the  reign  of  eternal  right  and  peace.  It  is  the  government  that 
is  paradoxical,  or  science  that  does  not  protest  enough,  in  declaring  that 
war  is  the  sine  qua  non  of  progress;  that  peace  is  not  the  desideratum,  for 
it  leads  to  flabbiness  of  fiber  and  decay;  but,  as  phrased  by  many  thinkers 
of  all  nations — war  is  the  great  tonic;  and  in  keeping  with  the  program 
outlined  by  Wells  in  his  "Social  Forces  in  England  and  America"  the 
whole  scheme  of  a  nation's  educational  system  should  be  mapped  with  an 
eye  single  to  the  highest  development  of  inventiveness  and  of  training  for 
war.  If  the  leaders  of  the  state  are  hesitant  in  voicing  loudly  this  dogma, 
why  should  religion,  whose  office  is  to  support  the  state,  vociferously 
sermonize  to  that  end,  until  the  climax  comes;  and  then  all,  unabashed, 
will  assert  the  righteousness  of  a  righteous  war.  Religion  has  but  played 
its  historic  role  when  it  has  ably  seconded  the  efforts  of  war,  throughout 
all  times,  to  make  men  progress. 

History  affords  ample  testimony  that  war  is  right.  It  remains  for  the 
sciences  of  psychology  and  biology  to  state  definitely,  if  it  can  be  so 
stated,  that  warfare  is  a  necessary  part  of  life,  that  man  can  no  more 
keep  from  this  propensity  than  he  can  from  learning  to  speak,  to  live  in 
groups,  to  form  states  and  empires,  to  prosecute  the  scientific  disciplines, 
or  to  take  an  attitude  to  mystery.  If  these  sciences,  or  any  other  that 
may  be  concerned,  affirm  categorically  that  man  cannot  help  himself,  he 
must  fight  and  kill  his  fellows,  so  that  from  the  conflict  there  may  arise 
an  attitude  to  mystery  that  shall  be  supreme  for  the  time  being,  then 
religion  is  again  exculpated;  for  if  a  thing  is  absolutely  necessary,  if  the 
human  composition  has  in  its  make-up  what  may  be  called  a  "unit 
character,"  that  must  be  found  in  all  normal  human  beings,  that  demands 
the  satisfaction  of  the  blood-lust  in  warfare,  then  whatever  else  may  be 
said  of  the  scorn  heaped  upon  the  head  of  the  pacifists,  the  accusation 
that  they  are  not  normal  is  thoroughly  justified;  and  religion  has  fulfilled 
its  divinest  function  in  heeding  the  call  of  the  God  of  Battles  who  im- 
planted in  human  beings  this  prepotent  entity  that  necessitates  warfare. 

It  is  then  that  Sociology  must  unhesitatingly  take  up  its  burden  and 
cast  the  die  for  a  theory  of  social  evolution  that  looks  above  and  beyond 
nations  to  a  system  that  is  all-conquering;  a  theory  that,  by  warfare  or 
its  analogue  in  the  remote  future,  will  create  a  society  that  will  keep  the 

86 


War  and  Religion 


rage  of  battle  at  a  fever  heat;  that  will  permit  no  sickly  sentimentalizing 
over  blood  spilt  and  treasure  lost,  nor  look  askance  at  men  of  today  or 
of  the  past  who  worshipped  the  God  of  Battles. 

The  record  of  human  and  pre-human  history  amply  justifies  such  a 
doctrine  of  progress  and  such  a  desirable  future  for  war  and  religion.  It 
is  the  verdict  of  the  biologist  and  the  psychologist,  added  to  that  of  the 
historian,  which  will  permit  the  sociologist  to  hint  more  directly  at  the 
future  of  war  and  religion,  as  well  as  to  understand  more  thoroughly  the 
past  as  it  has  been  thus  far  uncovered. 

The  most  painstaking  efforts  in  the  realm  of  history  make  sure  the 
fact  that  there  has  been  and  is  an  essential  connection  between  war  and 
religion,  in  which  war  is  the  primary  factor;  and  up  to  the  vibrating 
present  moment  this  connection  has  been  thoroughgoing  and  bids  fair 
to  continue  so  to  be. 


87 


Bibliography  on  *^War  and  Religion" 

(Note — This  list  of  books  represents  merely  the  authorities  consulted  chiefly  for  this  study. 
It  need  hardly  be  repeated  that  there  is  a  vast  library  treating  of  war  and  religion  in  a  popular 
or  partisan  spirit.  As  for  scientiflc  works,  more  especially  sociological  literature,  not  a  few  of 
the  books  mentioned  here  contain  full  bibliographies.  "The  Source  Book  for  Social  Origins,"  by 
W.  I.  Thomas,  is,  of  course,  the  indispensable  hand-book  for  the  student  of  Social  Sciences.) 

On  "Remote  Ancestohs" 
Czaplicka,  M.  A. — Aboriginal  Siberia  (Preface  by  R.  R.  Marett).    Oxford  1914. 
Brinton,  D.  G. — Religions  of  Primitive  Peoples.    New  York  1899. 
Codrington,  R.  H.— The  Melanesians.    Oxford  1891. 
Durkheim,  E. — The  Elementary  Forms  of  the  Religious  Life.    London 
Haddon,  A.  C. — Reports  of  the  Cambridge  Anthropological  Expedition  to  Torres  Strait* 

(Vol.  V).    Cambridge  1904 
Jevons,  F.  B. — An  Introduction  to  the  History  of  Religion.    London  1896.    (9th  Ed.  1914) 
Joyce,  T.  A. — South  American  Archicology.    New  York  1912. 
Keane,  A.  H.— Ethnology.    Cambridge  1901.    (1st  Ed.  1895). 
Leonard,  Major  A.  G. — The  Lower  Niger  and  Its  Tribes  (Preface  by  A.  C.  Haddon). 

London  1906. 
Marett,  R.  R.— The  Threshold  of  Religion.    London  1909. 

Morgan,  L.  H. — League  of  the  Iriquois  (New  Ed.  by  H.  M.  Lloyd).    New  York  1904. 
Mooney,  J. — The  Ghost  Dance  Religion.    Washington  1896. 
Osborn.  H.  F.— Men  of  the  Old  Stone  Age.    New  York  1916. 
Peet.  T.  E.— The  Stone  and  Bronze  Ages  in  Italy  and  Sicily.    Oxford  1909. 
Pitt-Rivers,  A.  Lane.  Fox.— The  Evolution  of  Culture.     Oxford  1906.     (Preface  by  H. 

Balfour.) 
Quiggin,  A.  H. — Primeval  Man.    London  1912. 
Rivers.  W.  H.  R.— The  Todaa.    London  1906. 
Roscoe.  J. — The  Northern  Bantu.    Cambridge  1915. 

Roth,  H.  L.— Aborigines  of  Tasmania.    Halifax  1899  (Preface  by  E.  B.  Tylor.) 
Spencer,  B. — Native  Tribes  of  the  Northern  Territory  of  Australia.    London  1914. 
Spencer,  B.,  and  Gillen,  F.  J. — The  Native  Tribes  of  Central  Australia.   London  1899. 
Spencer,  B.,  and  Gillen,  F.  J. — The  Northern  Tribes  of  Central  Australia.    London  1904. 
Thomas,  W.  I. — Source  Book  for  Social  Origins.    Chicago  1909. 

Books  on  "  Immediate  Ancestors" 
A — Historical 
Acton.  Lord. — (planned)  The  Cambridge  Modern  History  Vol.    1  New  York  1902. 

Vol.    2  New  York  1904 

Vol.    3  New  York  1905. 

Vol.  12  New  York  1910. 
Breasted,  J.  H. — Ancient  Times.    Boston  1916. 
Bury,  J.  B. — (planned)  The  Cambridge  Medieval  History  Vol.   1  New  York  1911. 

Vol.   2  New  York  1913. 
Davis,  H.  W.  C— Medieval  Europe.    New  York  1911. 
Duruy,  V. — A  Condensed  History  of  the  Middle  Ages.    New  York  1900. 

B — Religions 

Aston,  W.  G.— Shinto.    New  York  1905. 

Braithwaite,  W.  G. — The  Beginnings  of  Quakerism.    London  1912. 

Breasted,  J.  H. — Development  of  Religion  and  Thought  in  Ancient  Egypt.  New  York  1912. 

Coomaraswamy,  A. — Buddha  and  the  Gospel  of  Buddhism.    New  York  1916. 

Cumont,  F. — Astrology  and  Religion  Among  the  Greeks  and  Romans.    New  York  1912. 

DeGroot,  J.  J.  M.— Religion  in  China.    New  York  1912. 

DeGroot,  J.  J.  M. — Sectarianism  and  Religious  Persecution  in  China.    Amsterdam  1903. 

Dhalla,  M.  N. — Zoroastrian  Theology.    London  1914. 

von  Domaszewski,  A. — Die  Religion  des  Rdmisches  Heeres.    Trier  1895. 

Farnell,  L.  R.— The  Higher  Aspect  of  the  Greek  Religion.    New  York  1912. 

Fowler,  W.  W. — The  Religious  Experience  of  the  Roman  People.    London  1911. 

Fowler.  W.  W. — Roman  Ideas  of  Deity.    London  1914. 

88 


War  and  Religion 


HarriBon.  J.  E.— Themis.    Cambridge  1912. 

Jaatrow,  M.,  Jr. — The  Religion  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria.    Boston  1898. 

Jones,  R.  M. — The  Quakers  in  the  American  Colonies.    London  1911. 

Moore,  G.  F. — History  of  Religions.    New  York  1914. 

Plato's  Republic — Translated  by  J.  L.  Davies  and  D.  J.  Vaughan.    London  (1st  Ed.  1852, 

reprint  1910). 
Renel,  C. — Les  Enseignes.    Lyon  1903. 
Smith,  W.  R.— The  Religion  of  the  Semites.    London  1901. 
Spencer,  H. — Principles  of  Sociology.    New  York  1901. 
Sweet,  W.  W.— The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and  the  Civil  War.    Cincinnati  1912. 

Contemporaries  on  War  and  Religion 
(A  Condensed  List) 
Archer,  W.— Gems  (?)  of  German  Thought.    New  York  1917. 
Ballard,  Frank — Christianity  After  the  War.    London  1916. 
Bang,  J.  P.— Hurrah  and  Hallelujah.    New  York  1917. 
Barry,  F.  R. — Religion  and  the  War.    London  1915. 
Baudrillart,  A. — German  War  and  Catholici.sm.    Paris  1915. 
Bell,  G.  K.  A.— The  War  and  the  Kingdom  of  God.    London  1915. 
Benedict  XV — His  Holiness  Pope  Benedict  XV  on  the  Great  War.    London  1916. 
von  Bemhardi,  F. — Germany  and  the  Next  War.    London  1912. 
Brandes.  Georg.— The  Worid  at  War.    New  York  1917. 
Brown.  Charies— The  War  and  the  Faith.    London  1915. 
Carpenter,  J.  E. — Ethical  and  Religious  Problems  of  the  War.    London  1916. 
Catholics  of  the  British  Empire.    London  1916. 

Chadwick,  W.  E. — German  Christianity  and  the  Great  War.    London  1914. 
Cunningham,  W. — Christianity  and  Politics.    Boston  1915. 
Denney,  J. — War  and  the  Fear  of  God.    London  1916. 
Foakes-Jackson,  F.  J. — The  Faith  and  the  War.    London  1915. 
Goodwin,  W.  A.  R.— The  Church  Enchained.    New  York  1916. 
Gulick.  S.  L.— The  Fight  for  Peace.    New  York  1915. 

Hart,  A.  B.,  and  others — Problems  of  Readjustment  After  the  War.    New  York  1915. 
Hobhouse,  L.  T.— Morals  in  Evolution.    (Rev.  Ed.)  New  York  1916. 
Hobhouse,  L.  T. — Questions  of  War  and  Peace.    London  1916. 
Kellogg,  V.  L.— Beyond  War.    New  York  1912. 
Le  Bon,  G.— The  Psychology  of  the  Great  War.    New  York  1916. 
Leuba,  J.  H. — The  Belief  in  God  and  Immortality.    Boston  1916. 
Loeb,  J. — Mechanistic  Conception  of  Life.    Chicago  1912. 
Lodge,  O.— The  War  and  After.    London  1915. 

Loisy,  A.— The  War  and  Religion.    Oxford  1915  (Introd.  by  A.  Galton). 
Murray,  G.— Faith,  War  and  Policy.    New  York  1917. 
Osborne,  C.  E.— Religion  in  Europe  and  the  Worid  Crisis.    New  York  1916. 
Oxford  Pamphlets  1914-1915  on  Religion  and  War. 
RoUand,  R. — Above  the  Battle.    London  1916. 
Russell.  B.— Why  Men  Fight.    New  York  1917. 
Russell,  B. — Justice  in  War-Time.    Chicago  1916. 
Russell,  B. — Principles  of  Social  Reconstruction.    London  1917. 
Shotwell,  J.  T.— Religious  Revolution  of  Today.    Boston  1913. 
Thomson,  J.  A. — Darwinism  and  Human  Life.    New  York  1911. 
Tolstoy,  Leo  N. — My  Confession,  etc.    Boston  1904. 
von  Wilamowitz-Mollendorf,  U.— Deutsche  Reden  in  Schwerer  Zeit.  Vol.  2.   Berlin  1915. 


References  in  the  Text  of '"War  and  Religion'' 
Introduction 

'B  Russell.  "Why  Men  Fight."  p.  79 

»R.  R.  Marett.  "Threshold  of  Religion,"  p.  3 

^J.  T.  Shotwell,  "Religious  Revolution  of  Today."  p.  9 

^Shotwell  ibid,  p.  Ill 

<•     "  "     p.  156 

•      "  "     p.  162 

'J.  H.  Leuba.  "Psych.  Origin  of  Religion,"  p.  41 

»C.  H.  Toy,  "Introd.  Hist,  of  Religion,"  p.  160 

•Marett  ibid.,  p.  .15 


References,  Chapter  I 

iMarett  ibid. 

,  p.  155 

2         «'                 " 

p.X 

'Russell  ibid. 

,  p.  116 

*Durkheim,  ' 

Elem.  Forms  Rel.  Life, 

'  p.  10 

i              " 

«           >< 

"       " 

p.  16 

•              " 

"           " 

"       " 

p.  47 

7              " 

"           " 

"       " 

p.  187 

t              " 

*'           *' 

"       " 

pp.  188-189 

t              " 

"           " 

"       " 

p.  190 

It              " 

"           " 

"       " 

p.  204 

11               " 

•*           '* 

"       " 

p.  206 

11              « 

"           " 

"       " 

p.  206 

U             " 

"           " 

"       " 

p.  214 

M              " 

"           " 

"       " 

pp.  218-219 

l»              •' 

"           " 

"       " 

p.  221 

1«              " 

"           '* 

"       " 

p.  232 

17                «• 

"           '* 

"       " 

pp.  233-234 

IS 

'*           '* 

*'       " 

p.  234 

1»              '« 

"           " 

"       " 

p.  272 

JO              " 

"           " 

«<       <> 

p.  419 

"Leuba,  "  Belief  in  God  and  Immortality,"  p.  40 

22          4.                        4, 

"     " 

'            *' 

p.  281 

!J        "                   " 

"     " 

.            " 

pp.  321-322 

U         "                     " 

"     "      ' 

'            " 

pp.  325-326 

ti            <4                              " 

"     "      ' 

'             " 

pp.  324-325 

**Jevons,"  Introd.  to  Hist. 

of  Religion, 

■  p.  19 

t7         "                      " 

"      " 

"           " 

p.  19 

tt         «                     i< 

"      " 

*'          " 

p.  87 

1*         "                      " 

"      " 

"                              .4 

pp.  99-101 

lU          "                        " 

"      " 

"                               " 

p.  101 

SI          "                       » 

..      X 

" 

p.  382 

K         i.                      *. 

"      " 

"                              " 

p.  410 

*^Keane,  "Ethnology,"  pp 

216-217 

*^H.  Spencer.  ' 

'Princ.  of  Sociology,"  p. 

422 

J4  11               ii 

"        " 

P- 

556 

U  "              «' 

"        " 

P- 

559 

J7  i.                »i 

"        " 

P- 

560 

38  "              " 

"        " 

P- 

12 

t»  " 

"        " 

P 

26 

*^Spencer  ibid. 

,   p.  520 

41            ••                    " 

p.  525 

«           ..                    i. 

p.  557 

«Pitt-Rivei-s,  ' 

'  Evolution  of  Culture," 

p.  55 

«          ♦' 

" 

" 

p.  56 

4t                 " 

" 

"         " 

p.  58 

90 


War  iiiul  Relip;ion 


"Jpvons  ibid.,  pp.  96-97 

<"     •'  "      p.  242 

**W.  I.  Thomaa,  "Source  Book  for  Social  Origiiw,"  pp.  155-156 

«V.  L.  Kellogg.  "Beyond  War."  pp.  120-123 

io    ..  ..  "  .'       p   125 

»'    "  "  "  "      pp.  140-141 

"Russell  ibid.,  pp.  6-7 
"      "  "     pp.  12-13 

"      "  ••     p.  113 

^     "  ••     p.  79 


Chapter 

//,  Section  A 

'Thomas  ibid.. 

P 

12 

J      " 

" 

P- 

167 

J      " 

" 

P 

13 

*H.  F. 

Osborn 

Men 

of  Old  Stone  Age, 

'  p.  83 
p.  60 

pp.  107-149 
p.  162 

p.  168 

p.  24 
p.  2-26 
p.  232 

p.  235 
p.  236 
p.  215 
p.  248 

0  " 

1  " 
a    " 

a    " 

M       " 

i       •« 

pp.  249-258 

pp.  260-261 

p.  272 

p.  292 

p.  316 

p.  351 

p.  358 

pp.  388-390 

p.  450 

pp.  456  and  502 

»Pitt-Rivers  ibid.,  pp.  89-90 

*^Keane  ibid.,  pp.  120-122 

^Kellogg  ibid.,  pp.  27.  33.  47.  129  et  passim 

"J.  A.  Thomson,  "Darwinism  and  Human  Life."  pp.  213-214 

^''Spencer  ibid.,  p.  547 

Section  B,  Part  1 

="Oslx>rn  ibid.,  p.  214 

*^D.  G.  Brinton.  "Religioas  of  Primitive  Peoples."  p.  209 

''Kellogg  ibid.,  p.  49 

**Leuba  ibid.,  p.  5 

^•'Osborn  ibid.,  p.  24 

^'^A.  H.  Quiggin,  "Primeval  Man." 


»Leuba  ibid.,  pp.  18-19 
"     "  "     p.  33 

'"Jevons  ibid.,  p.  86 
*'Keane  ibid.,  p.  137 
^-Brinton  ibid.,  pp.  34-36 
«      "  "     pp.  70-71 

"      "  "     pp.  206-207 

^'Kellogg  ibid.,  p.  69 
«      "  "     p.  90 

*'Osborn  ibid.,  pp.  221-226 


p.  120 
p.  94 


01 


War  and  Religion 


**Osl)orn  ibid.,  p.  270 

**      "  ■'     p.  :i()5 

<*•>      "  "     pp.  501-502 

"T.  E.  Peet,  "The  Stone  and  Bronze  Ages,  Etc.,"  p.  55 
42    M  ..  «  »         ..  ..  »  ..       p    JJ3 

"Peet  ibid.,  pp.  118-122 
«    "        "     p.  174 
65    "         "      p   211 
M   "        "     p  225 
"    "        "     pp.  228-2;}7 
«   "        "     pp.  280-283 
*9   "        "     pp.  289-394 
«»   "        •*     pp.  432-445 
"    "        "     p.  492ff 
*^.slx>in  ibid.,  p.  358 
^      "  "      p.  392 


Chapte 


ter  II,  Section  B,  Part  2 

«^E.  B.  Tylor,  "Limits  of  Savage  Religion,"  p.  283ff 
*^E.  B.  Tylor,  "Tasmanians,"  p.  149ff 
''*H.  L.  Roth,  "Aborigines  of  Tasmania," 


p.  V  and  VI 

«^    "  "  "  "  "  pp.  53-56 

68      -  "  .^  >.  ..  p     gj 

„    ,.  ..  ..  ..  ..  pp  72-73 

70    "  "  -  »  ..  p    115 

"    "  "  "  "  "  pp.  116-118 

'-    "  "  "  "  "  pp.  137-138 

73     "  .'  ..  -  "  p    145 

u     «  ..  ..  ..  ..  p    igy 

^*    "  "  "  "  "  pp.  227-228 

'^Spencer  &  Gilleu,  "Northern  Tribes  of  Central  Australia,  Etc.,"  pp.  15-18 

"vSpencer  &  (lillen,  "  Native  of  Central  Australia,"  p.  32 

^^Spencer  &  Gilien,  "Northern  of  Central  Australia,"  pp.  31-32 

"B.  Spencer,  "Native  of  Northern  Australia,"  p.  11 

^'Spencer  &  Gilien,  "Northern  of  Central  Australia,"  p.  33ff 

81  »        »       <.  <.  »        ..  ..  p   145 

82  "         "        "  ..  «         ..  ..  p    i7g 

83  "        •'       "  "  »        .«  -  p  227 

84  -        ..       ..  ..  ..        .4  ..  p  238 

85  "        "       ..  "  -        *.  "  p  248 

««      "  "        "  "  p.  277-278 

87  "        -       .>  "  -        »  .<  p  328 

88  "        "       .<  ..  "        .<  ..  p  330 

89  "        .'       .'  -  -        -  ..  p  387 

90  "        "       "               "  ..        -  ..  pp  392  &  490 
w      ..        ..       ..              <.  ,.        ,.                ..  p  501 

92       "         "        ..  »  ..         ..  ..  p   511 

^      "        "       "  "  "        "  "  pp.  544-545 

M      .>        "       ..  .>  w        ..  ..  p.  556ff 

95       "         .<        "  "  «         »  »  p   5g8 

*      "        "       "  "  "        "  "  pp.  596-597 

97       -         "        »  "  ..         ..  ..  p   g08 

**      "        "       "  "  "        "  "  pp.  634-635 

'^Spencer  &  Gilien,   "Native  Tribes  of  Central  Australia,"  pp.  133-135 
100      "         "       "               .<  ..       "        >.  ..  p   4gi 

'"1      "        "       "  "  ' "  pp.  476-477 

"»      "        "       "  "  '  "  pp.  478-481 

103  "        ..       "  "  ..       -        -  ..  p  497 

104  "        ..       -  -  .>       .>        ..  ..  p  530 
,06      ..        "       -              "              ..       ..        ..                ..          p  537 

106      "        "       "  "  .'       "        "  "  pp  (i02-604 

'"'L.  H.  Morgan,  "League  of  Iroquois,"  pp.     13-14 


92 


\Yar  and  Rolision 


"*L.  H.  Morgan,  "League  of  Iroquois,"  pp.  178-179 

'»»    "  "  *•         '•  "         pp.  257-2<K) 

"oj.  O.  Dorsey,  "A  Study  of  Siouan  Cult.s,"  pp.  :50()-493 

'"J.  \V.  Kewkt's,  "The  I'rehistoric  Culture  of  Tusayan,"  pp.  I(>l-lt>5 

"-J.  Moouev,  "(iho.st  Dance  Religion,"  pp.  711-71;i 

"•'  "      "  "  "  "  pp.  7(>4.  777  and  796 

,14  ..  ..  ..  ..  jj  7j^3 

11.-.  -  ..  -  ..  p  ^24 

"'■.\.  (".  Haddon.  "Torre.s  Strait.s,  etc,"  p.  1 
"•  "  "  "         "       pp.  3-4 

118  "  "  "         "      pp,  273 

„9  «  ..  ..         ..      p  277 

120  ..  '.  «         "      p  3Q2 

'-'Hose  and  MeDongall,  "Men  and  Animals  in  Sarawak,"  pp.  174-lSl 
iM    ..        ..  ..  <.  .<  ..       ..  ..  p   212 


mjt 

H. 

(^oc 

Irington. 

"  Melanesians,' 

pp.  118-120 

121 

" 

" 

p.  120 

125 

" 

" 

pp.  124-127 

IV, 

" 

" 

pp.  129,  132 

127 

" 

" 

p.  135 

12*/^ 

G.  Leonard.  "Lower  Niger  Tribes,"  p.  X 

129 

" 

"            '• 

'        p.  Xlf 

130 

i:ii 

» 

.. 

'     pp.  xii-xrii 

'        p.  23 

132 

" 

"            " 

pp.  70-71 

133 

" 

"            " 

p.  119 

134 

" 

*'            " 

'        pp.  1()6-167 

133 

" 

«            X 

p.  177 

136 

'* 

"            " 

pp. 178-185 

137 

" 

pp.  397-398 

13»,J. 

Ros«>e 

"  Bantu 

,"  pp.  14 

-lo 

139 

' 

pp.  81 

-82 

140 

' 

p.  96 

141 

' 

p.  132 

142 

' 

p.  161 

143 

' 

pp.  184-18.-) 

144 

' 

pp.  243-244 

145 

p.  24.-) 

146\Y 

.  H.  U. 

Rivers,  ' 

'Todas," 

pp. 

182-186 

147 

" 

" 

pp. 

187-207 

148 

" 

" 

p.  295 

14» 

" 

" 

pp. 

337,  361  and  586 

150 

" 

" 

pp. 

518-.521 

ISl 

" 

" 

pp. 

554-555 

152 

" 

" 

p.  . 

)S« 

153 

" 

'* 

p.  ' 

■16 

»«M 

.  A.  Czaplicka,  ' 

'Aboriginal  Siberia,"  p.  VIII 

155 

" 

" 

pp.  24-27 

136 

" 

" 

pp. 37-38 

157 

" 

" 

pp.  r)8-69 

158 

" 

" 

pp.  129-145 

159 

" 

" 

pp.  168,  203 

160 

" 

" 

p.  243 

161 

" 

" 

pp.  256-2.59 

162 

" 

'* 

pp.  273-275 

163 

" 

" 

pp.  289-290 

164'J' 

A.  Joyce,  "South  American 

Archaeology,"  pp.  17-18 

165 

pp.  23-29 

166 

"              pp.  6«>-67 

167 

p.  8() 

1«S 

pp.  91-95 

169 

pp.  100-113 

170 

" 

pp.  144-147 

93 


War  and  Religion 


References  for  Chapicr  III,  Section  A 

J.  H.  Breasted,  "Ancient  Times,"  pp.  32-'i4 
'  '*  "  "        pp.  44-45 

p.  85 

pp. 120-121 

pp. 157-1C3 

pp. 172-174 

p.  178 

pp.  207-214 

p.  244 

p.  320 

p.  714 

References  for  Chapter  III,  Section  B,  Part  1 
'J.  H.  Breasted.  "Development  of  Religion  and  Tho\ight  in  Anoienl  Kgvpt."  pp.  5-6 

»  "  "  '  "         "        "  '"        pp.  8-9 

»  "  "  "         "  "  "         "        "  "        pp.  14-24 

*G.  F.  Moore,  "Historv  of  ReIigion.s,"  pp.  149-1G9 

»  "  ' pp.  176-177 

•Breasted,  ibid.,  pp.  49-51 
">       "  "     pp.  84-91 

•       "  "     p.  281 

»       "  "     p.  309 

'•       "  "     pp.  313-315 

"       "  "     pp.  349-369 

^  Moore,  ibid.,  pp.  188-189 

13         "  "        p.  VI 

References  for  Chapter  III,  Section  B,  Part  2 
'M.  Jastrow.  Jr.,  "Religion  of  Bab.  and  Assvr.,"'  p.  49 

pp.  53-57 

pp.  66-72 

pp.  83-85 

pp.  91-117 

pp. 118-120 
'Moore,  ibid.,  pp.  209-211 
•Jastrow,  ibid.,  p.  192 
»        "  "     pp.  193-205 

»•        "  "     pp.  212-222 

»        "  "     p.  296 

"        "  "     pp.  312-314 

•»        "  "     p.  317 

"        "  "     pp.  329-348 

»        "  "     p.  374 

"        "         "     pp.  376-382 
"        "  "     pp.  533-534 

"        "         "     p.  567 
'•        "  "     pp.  694-695 

2»Moore.  ibid.,  pp.  221-222 


References  for  Chapter  III,  Sectimi  B,  Pari  3 
iMoore,  ibid.,  p.  329 
»     "  "     pp.  325-327 

»     "  "     p.  249 

•  "  "     p.  327 

»     "  "     pp.  343-344 

•  "  "     pp.  359-360 

^M.  N.  Dhalla,  "Zoroastrian  Theology,"  pp.  11-12 

•  "  "  "  "  pp.  13-16 

•  "  "  "  "  pp.  47-52 


94 


War  and  Religion 


"Moore,  ibid,,  pp.  364-36.1 
"   '*     "  p.  371 
"   "    *•  p.  378 
"Dhalla,  ibid.,  pp.  82-83 
'«   "    "  pp.  06-135 
'»   '•    "  p.  143-146 
»•   •'    "  p.  187 
'•   "    •'  pp.  277-278 
'•Moore,  ibid.,  pp.  403-405 

References  jor  Chapter  III,  Section  B,  Part  4 

'Moore,  ibid.,  p.  301 

^A.  Coomaraswamv,  "  Buddha  and  Gospel  of  Buddhism,"  p.  182  note 

p.  VI 


p- 

91 

p- 

110 

p- 

115 

pp.  115-123 

P- 

214 

P- 

126 

P- 

138 

raswamy 

,  ibid. 

p.  139 
pp.  1.58-159 
pp.  182-184 
p.  222 
p.  281 

ibid.,  p. 

325 

"     P- 

297 

"     P- 

299 

"Moore, 


References  for  Chapter  III,  Section  B,  Part  5 

'Moore,  ibid.,  p.  94 

»  "  "  pp.  3-4 

'  "  "  pp.  4-6 

*  "  "  pp.  7-17 

*  '*  "  pp.  20-22 
«  ■'  "  pp.  25-36 
7  •'  "  pp.  37-42 

*  "  "  pp.  48-56 

'J,  J.  M.  DeGroot,  "Religion  in  China,"  pp.  2-4 

»      "  *••  p.  16ff. 

»       "  "  "  "        "        pp.  206,  208,  211,  221 

pp.  43,  44,  286,  318 
DeGroot,  "Sectarianism  and  Rel.  Persec.  in  China, 


12       •• 

»J.  J.  M 


pp.  2-3 
p.  90 
pp. 149 
p.  162 
pp.  273-274 
p.  559ff. 
p.  565 


References  for  Chapter  III,  Section  B,  Part  0 


•Moore,  ibid., 

P- 

94 

I      "           •' 

P 

93 

3         «•                 •' 

P 

95 

*W.  G.  Aston 

Shinto," 

•p.  6 
p.  44 

p.  56 
pp.  6.5-66 
pp.  70-71 
p.  135 

95 


War  and  Religion 


"W.  G.  Aston.  "Shinto."  pp.  178-179 

"     "  "  "         pp.  218-2l<» 

"     "  "  "         pp.  232-2;J4 

"     "  "  "         p.  360 

"Moore,  ibid.,  p.  Ill 

'5      "  "     pp.  118-122 

'«      "  "     pp.  123-124 

"      •'  "     pp.  137-138 

i» Aston,  ibid.,  p.  .3(iO 

•»     "  "     p.  3(;2 

'^0     "         '*     pp.  .372-373 

*'     "  "     pp.  374-376 

References  for  Chapter  III,  Section  B,  Part  7 

'L.  R.  Furnell,  "  Higher  Aspects  of  Greek  Religion,"  p.  82 
-J.  E.  Harrison,  "Themis,"  p.  1 

*  "  "         pp.  15-16 
*Moore,  ibid.,  pp.  432-434 
^Harrison,  ibid.,  p.  28 

*  "  "     p.  46 

'        "  "  pp.  87-90 

^Farnell,  ibid.,  p.  1 

*  "           "  pp.  64-65 
'"      "           "  p.  69 

"  "  "       pp.  81-82 

'■-  "  "       pp.  96-97 

"  "  "       pp.  128-131 

"Moore,  ibid.,  pp.  413-417 

**  "  "  pp.  419-420 

'«  "  "  p.  431 

"  "  "  pp.  420-424 

'*  "  "  p.  428 

"  "  "  p.  438 

*"  "  "  pp.  477-478 

"  "  "  pp.  463-469 

^  "  "  p.  4S9 

23  "  "  pp.  494-495 

2^Plato's  RepubHc  (Edition  in  Bibl.),  pp.  60-74 

■^  "  "               "         "       "      pp.  176-179 

26  "  "                "          "        "       p.  184 

27  "  «                "          «       "       p.  187 

28  «  «               ..         .,       ..      p  270 

References  for  Chapter  III,  Section  B,  Part  S 
'C.  Renel,  "Les  Enseignes,"  p.  6 
*A.  von  Domaszewski,  "Die  ReHgion  des  Romisches  Heeres,"  p.  2 

;       "         ::     r    ::     ::       r    p-* 

4  .<  ....  ..  ..  p       jg 

'\V.  W.  Fowler,  "Rei.  Exper.  of  Roman  People,"  p.  25 
^Moore,  il)id.,  p.  543 

"     pp.  545-546 

"      p.  548 

"     pp.  552-557 

"     p.  558 

"     pp.  572-573 

"     p.  575 

"     pp.  592-595 

"     p.  596 

'*F.  Cumont,  "Astrology  &  Relig.  Among  the  Greeks  &  Romans,"  pp.  182.  38.  99.  180,  181 
'"Fowler,  ibid.,  p.  71 
''      "  "     p.  87,  note  ten 

'*      "  "     p.  93 


96 


War  and  Religion 


"Fowler,  ibid.,  p.  96 

'«      "  "     pp.  129-134 

"      "  *'     pp.  204-206 

«      "  '•     p.  20S 

«      "  "     pp.  249-2.51 

"      "  "     p.  H()9 

«      '*  "     p.  329 

»«      "  "     p.  336 

«      '*  "     pp.  462-465 

"W.  W.  Fowler,  "Roman  Ideas  of  Deity,"  p.  84 

References  for  Chapter  III,  Section  B,  Pari  9 
^W.  R.  Smith.  "Relig.  of  Semites,"  pp.  29-32 
'     "  "  *'        "        "  pp.  35,  36  and  37 

'     *'  *'  "       "        "  pp.  5.3-54 

* pp.  64-74 

»     "  "  pp.  258,  263.  264.  266  and  359 

•Jewish  Encyc,  vol.  12,  pp.  463-466 
7     "  "        vol.  9,  pp.  160-162 

»     "  "         vol.  6,  pp.  1-15 

»     "  "        vol.  9,  pp.  565-567 

'"A.  Cronbach,  "Socialism,"  Chapt.  10,  D.  D.  Thesis,  Hebrew  Union  Col.,  Cincinnati,  1913 


References  for  Chapter  III,  Sectu 

^  "Cambridge  Medieval  History,"  vol.  1,  p.  1 
*         "  "  "        pp.  4-5 

pp.  8-10 

pp. 12-23 

pp.  150-151 

pp.  170-173 

p.  174 

pp.  288-291 

pp.  303-308 

p.  312 

p.  315 

pp.  323-359 

p.  590 

vol.  2,  ibid.,  pp.  1-43 

pp.  111-116 

pp.  304-308 

pp.  313-317 

pp.  318-321 

pp.  323-328 

pp. 329-354 

p.  390 

pp.  463-550 

pp.  578-fi58 
«         "  "  "        p.  689 

^  "Cambridge  Modern  History,"  vol.  I, 
««  "  "  "        p.  12 

"  "        pp.  56-66 

p.  68 
p.  97 
p.  98 
p.  143 
pp.  144-189 
pp.  200-218 
pp.  225-360 


ion  C 


pp.  2-3 


pp.  i2Z0-00U 

pp.  460-483,  .569-571,  579 

p.  653 

pp.  655-667 


97 


War  and  Religion 


38  "C 

am 

b.  M 

adern  History,"  pp.  668-672 

39Vol 

2. 

ibid. 

p.  104 

«0        < 

" 

pp.  165-209 

41         ' 

" 

pp.  223-224 

42         « 

" 

p.  227 

43         ' 

" 

p.  228 

44         « 

" 

p.  689 

4&        < 

•' 

p.  691 

«Vol 

3. 

ibid. 

,p.V 

47        • 

" 

p.  7 

48        ' 

" 

pp. 19-20 

49        < 

" 

pp.  36-37 

60         « 

" 

pp.  65-68 

51         ' 

" 

pp.  74,  76,  77.  80,  84 

6J         ' 

" 

pp.  104-105 

63         ' 

" 

p.  126 

U         ' 

" 

pp.  264,  271,  285,  292,  345-347,  351-353,  506-509 

56        « 

" 

pp. 362-363 

59        ' 

" 

pp.  464-466,  520 

67        ' 

" 

pp.  740-743 

58        « 

" 

pp.  745-748.  768-769 

"W. 

W. 

Sweet,  "Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and  the  Civil  War,"  p.  8 

80        ' 

" 

'      p.  9 

61        ' 

" 

'      p.  14 

6J        ' 

" 

'      pp.  20-21 

53        ' 

" 

'      pp.  25  and  34 

64        ' 

" 

'      pp.  42,  58-60 

65        ' 

" 

'      pp.  77-79,  87-90 

66        ' 

" 

'      p.  103 

67        ' 

" 

'      p.  112 

68        ' 

" 

'      pp. 128-129 

69        ' 

" 

'      p.  167 

^ojewish  Encyclopedia,  vol.  12,  pp.  363-364. 

Also  Jewish  Periodical  Press  as  "American 

Israelite,"  "Occident,"  etc. 

References  far  Chapter  IV 
iRussell,  "Why  Men  Fight,"  p.  221 
^Jevons,  ibid.,  p.  415 

^W.  E.  Wilson,  "Christ  and  War,"  pp.  IX-XII 
«     "  "  "         "        "      pp.  15-18 

5     »  «  "         "        "      p.  29 

'A.  G.  Hogg.  "Christianity  and  Force,"  p.  3 
^    "  "  "  "  "       pp.  3.  4,  16 

«F.  J.  Foakes-Jackson,  "The  Faith  and  the  War."  pp.  192,  195  . 
'J.  Denney,  "  War  and  the  Fear  of  God,"  p.  81 
'"F.  Ballard,  "Christianity  After  the  War."  p.  8 
>'F.  R.  Barry,  "Religion  and  the  War,"  p.  7 
'^W.  E.  Wilson,  ibid.,  pp.  X-XI 
"     "  "  "     pp.  69-76 

"A.  Baudrillart,  "German  War  and  Catholicism,"  pp.  13-46 

,5  .<  »  »  »  »  p     gj 

'«F.  B.  Proctor,  "The  National  Crisis,  etc..  Churches  Fail,"  pp.  13.  22 

•'C.  Brown,  "The  War  and  the  Faith,"  p.  77 

'*W.  Cunningham,  "Christianity  and  Politics,"  pp.  34,  70,  183,  263 

'»  "  "         '      "  "         p.  VI 

»»  "  "  "  "         pp.  249,  252,  25^255,  263 

^'Philadelphia  Morning  "Public  Ledger,"  12-25-17 

'^W.  E.  Chadwick,  "German  Christianity  and  the  Great  War,  '  p.  14 

''J.  E.  Carpenter,  "Ethical  and  Religious  Problems  of  the  War,"  pp.  5,  7,  13,  VI 

'^Gilbert  Murray,  "Faith,  War  and  Policy,"  pp.  X,  XI 

j5      "  "  "  "       "  "        pp.  7-8 

„      »  «  »  ..       ..  »        p9 


98 


War  and  Reli^wTi*'- 


'^Carpenter,  ibid.,  p.  182 

'^Oxford  Pamphlets.  1914-191;'),  W.  B.  Selbie,  "The  War  and  Theology."  pp.  10-12.  15 

''A.  Loisv,  "The  War  and  Religion,"  p.  XVII 
,0        ..    ■        ..         ..       ..  ..  p   ^2 

„       ..  .<        .<       ..  »         p  XXVII 

Si       <'  "        ..       "  "  p  21 

"        "  "        "       "  "  pp.  64-65 

"J.  P.  Bang,  "Hurrah  and  Hallelujah,"  p.  16 

pp.  35-40 

pp.  42ff. 

pp.  54,  59,  62.  72,  79,  88 

p.  90 

p.  133 

pp.  192,  216,  217 
*'W.  Archer,  "Gems  (.')  of  German  Thought,"  pp.  4,  5,  6,  7 
^         "  "        "     "        "  "  pp.  14-16.  21,  27 

«         "  "        "     "        "  "  p.  52 

«         "  "        "     "        "  "  p.  59 

45  "  .«        «     «        "  »  p  94 

46  ..  ..         ..     »        «  »  p    j^ 

*'         "  "        "     "        "  "  pp.  153-154 

^U.  v.Wilamowitz-Mollendorf,  "Deutsche  Reden,  etc.,"  vol.  2,  p.  87 

«"New  York  Times,"  4r-2-17 

50        "  -         4-16-17 

"        "  "         12-26-17 

s^Murray,  ibid.,  pp.      253-254 

"Foakes-Jackson,  ibid.,  pp.  97-98 

^  "  "     title  page 

"«  "  "     pp.  X,  XI 

**"The  Church  and  International  Relations,"  published  by  Fed.  Counc.  of  Churches  of 

Christ  in  Am.,  vol.  3,  pp.  197,  203 
^"The  Churches  of  Christ  in  Time  of  War,"  published  by  preceding,  passim 

8*         -  c<  <.  <.         »         ..  .  ..  ..  „  »  »  p     yjj 

"S.  L.  Gulick,  "The  Fight  for  Peace,"  p.  10 

«»"New  York  Times,"  12-25-17 

"Philadelphia   Morning  "Public  Ledger,"   2-25-17;  Philadelphia   "Evening  Bulletin." 

3-31-17 
•^Loisy.  ibid.,  p.  XVIII 
^Cunningham,  ibid.,  pp.  102-103,  260 
"W.  C.  Braithwaite,  "Beginnings  of  Quakerism."   pp.  12.  23.  28,  30,  53,  228,  280,  298, 

313,  315 
*»W.  C.  Braithwaite,  "Beginnings  of  Quakerism,"  pp.  519-520 
^R.  M.  Jones,  "The  Quakers  in  the  American  Colonies,"  p.  556 
"Philadelphia  "Public  Ledger,"9-.S-17;6-23-17,|Philadelphia  "Evening  Bulletin."8-16-17 

68  ..  «  "         6-18-17 

69  «  «  .<         5-30-17 

70  "  "  "        10-21-17 

"Tolstoy,  "My  Confession,  etc.,"  Book  I.  p.  447;  cf.  also  pp.  82-83, 85,  227,  235  et  passim 

'^Ibid,  Book  II,  pp.  8.  9,  15 

"    "  "        p.  393 

"^    "  "        pp.  414.  427 

'^Foakes-Jackson,  ibid.,  p.  204 

'«Ballard,  ibid.,  p.  7 

"'Russell,  ibid.,  p.  222 

'^Philadelphia  "Evening  Bulletin,"  12-22-17 

'*F.  von  Bernhardi,  "Germany  and  the  Next  War."  p.  10 

80  <>  "  .'  «      ..       «.  "      pp  22,30 

81  "  •'  "  «      «       "         "      pp.  42,  47 
8,     »               »                  «  ..      .<       »         <.      pp  7j_72 

"     "  "  .        "         .   "      "       "         "      PP-  247.  252-253.  258.  261.  293.  300 

*^H.  G.  Wells,  "Social  Forces  in  England  and  America,"    p.  171  et  passim,  cf.  also    hij 

"Mr.  Britling,  etc.,"  "God  the  Invisible  King"  and  "The  Soul  of  a  Bishop." 


99 


War  and  Religion 


References  for  Chapter  V 

'"Cambridge  Modern  History,"  vol.  12,  p.  5 

,         "  "  "        p.  7 

»         "  "  "        pp.  14,  15,  64 

*         "  "  "        p.  700  • 

"         "  "  "        pp.  705-706,  715,  716 

«Hobhouse.  "Questions  of  War  and  Peace,"  pp.  188-189.  191-192,  212-214,  223-224 

'G.  Brandes,  "World  at  War,"  pp.  41,  43,  52,  75,  77,  78 

«Brandes,  ibid.,  p.  128 

»       "  "     pp.  139-140,  152,  160 

I"       "  "     p.  163 

"       "  "     pp.  173-177 

^       "  "     pp.  178-182 

"       "  "     pp.  219-227 

^*       "  "     pp.  209,  237-238 

«       "  "     pp.  234-235 

»«       "  "     pp.  247-248 

"R.  Holland,  "Above  the  Battle,"  pp.  110  and  43 

"O.  Lodge,  "The  War  and  After."  pp.  5,  7,  8,  11,  12 

»»        "  "        "       "         "       pp.  24,  26,  50 

JO        ..  ..        «       <<         »       p   115 

»i        "  "        "       "         "       pp.  119-122,  125,  140 

«        "  "        "       "         "       pp.  213-214.  225 

23        "  "        "       "         "       pp.  230-231 

2^LeBon,  "Psych,  of  the  Great  War."  pp.  306-307 

^      "  "         "    "       "  "      pp.  309-311.  422-423.  460-461,  470-471 

**A.  B.  Hart,  etc..  "Problems  of  Readjustment,  etc.,"  pp.  17,  29.  35 

"    "         "        "  "  "  "  "       pp.  61.  65,  67,  69 

«    "         "        "  "  "  "  "       pp.  73   74,  79 

„    «         .<        ..  »  .<  »  «       p   13Q 

""New  York  Times"  Book  Review,  11-25-17 

"H.  Spencer,  ibid,  p.  600 

"^Thomas,  ibid.,  pp.  172-173 

'^Thomson,  ibid.,  pp.  91,  93,  214,  226  and  226  note 

^B.  RusseU,  "Justice  in  War  Time,"  pp.  17-18,  20,  28,  35-36,  40,  57.  59,  67,  68,  94, 

111,  120.  136,  202 
ssRussell,  "Why  Men  Fight,"  pp.  79,  100,  227,  268.  269,  270  et  passim 
M      "  "       "  "      p.  55 


100 


THIS  BOOK  ^' 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

RENEWALS  ONLY—TEL.  NO.  642-3405 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 

RECD  1  n    ii 

mntizmo55 

•»*-w  u  LU    Jit 

w3    70  -8  PM  8  0 

SEP    3l982iO( 

3   ^^^^'SC0ec22*86 

■  1 

JAN    i)m7 

LD21A-60m-3,'70                        ,,   . Genial  IJbrary     . 
{X5382sl0)476-A-32                      ^'^''^'^'^^^J^^f'^°"'"' 

GENERAL  LIBRARY  -  U.C.  BERKELEY 


BDDDB'I'^Vab 


381331 


•  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


•i'-'  ;.  -..  I    <■■''' 


